systematic-debugging
/systematic-debugging
Explicit `/systematic-debugging` reference for a structured root-cause audit. Use only when the user requests this workflow; routine diagnosis stays native.
- Author
- dannykkh ↗
- Repository
- skill-olympus ↗
- Licence
- MIT
- Last repository change
- 26.10.2026
Assessment and security
- Files in this package
- 11
- Scripts
- 2
- HTML comments
- 0
- URLs in SKILL.md
- 0
No signals detected. Repository changed on 26.10.2026, without references to retired models or APIs.
MIT, open: use and modify while retaining author attribution.
- 2 scripts in this package. Review them before installing, as Claude may execute them.
Scripts: condition-based-waiting-example.ts, find-polluter.sh
What it does and when to use it
Explicit `/systematic-debugging` reference for a structured root-cause audit. Use only when the user requests this workflow; routine diagnosis stays native.
Original author description
Explicit `/systematic-debugging` reference for a structured root-cause audit. Use only when the user requests this workflow; routine diagnosis stays native.
How it works
- Overview
- The Iron Law
- The Four Phases
- Red Flags - STOP and Follow Process
- your human partner's Signals You're Doing It Wrong
- Why Speed Arguments Fail
- Quick Reference
- When Process Reveals "No Root Cause"
- Supporting Techniques
SKILL.md preview
---
name: systematic-debugging
description: |
Explicit `/systematic-debugging` reference for a structured root-cause audit.
Use only when the user requests this workflow; routine diagnosis stays native.
---
# Systematic Debugging
## Overview
Random fixes waste time and create new bugs. Quick patches mask underlying issues.
**Core principle:** ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes. Symptom fixes are failure.
**Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of debugging.**
## The Iron Law
```
NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST
```
If you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.
## The Four Phases
You MUST complete each phase before proceeding to the next.
### Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation
**BEFORE attempting ANY fix:**
1. **Read Error Messages Carefully**
- Don't skip past errors or warnings
- They often contain the exact solution
- Read stack traces completely
- Note line numbers, file paths, error codes
2. **Reproduce Consistently**
- Can you trigger it reliably?
- What are the exact steps?
- Does it happen every time?
- If not reproducible → gather more data, don't guess
3. **Check Recent Changes**
- What changed that could cause this?
- Git diff, recent commits
- New dependencies, config changes
- Environmental differences
4. **Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems**
**WHEN system has multiple components (CI → build → signing, API → service → database):**
**BEFORE proposing fixes, add diagnostic instrumentation:**
```
For EACH component boundary:
- Log what data enters component
- Log what data exits component
- Verify environment/config propagation
- Check state at each layer
Run once to gather evidence showing WHERE it breaks
THEN analyze evidence to identify failing component
THEN investigate that specific component
```
**Example (multi-layer system):**
```bash
# Layer 1: Workflow
echo "=== Secrets available in workflow: ==="
echo "IDENTITY: ${IDENTITY:+SET}${IDENTITY:-UNSET}"
# Layer 2: Build script
echo "=== Env vars in build script: ==="
env | grep IDENTITY || echo "IDENTITY not in environment"
# Layer 3: Signing script
echo "=== Keychain state: ==="
security list-keychains
security find-identity -v
# Layer 4: Actual signing
codesign --sign "$IDENTITY" --verbose=4 "$APP"
```
**This reveals:** Which layer fails (secrets → workflow ✓, workflow → build ✗)
5. **Trace Data Flow**
**WHEN error is deep in call stack:**
See `root-cause-tracing.md` in this directory for the complete backward tracing technique.
**Quick version:**
- Where does bad value originate?
- What called this with bad value?
- Keep tracing up until you find the source
- Fix at source, not at symptom
### Phase 2: Pattern Analysis
**Find the pattern before fixing:**
1. **Find Working Examples**
- Locate similar working code in same codebase
- What works that's similar to what's broken?
2. **Compare Against References**
- If implementing pattern, read reference implementation COMPLETELY
- Don't skim - read every line
- Understand the pattern fully before applying
3. **Identify Differences**
- What's different between working and broken?
- List every difference, however small
- Don't assume "that can't matter"
4. **Understand Dependencies**
- What other components does this need?
- What settings, config, environment?
- What assumptions does it make?
### Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing
**Scientific method:**
1. **Form Single Hypothesis**
- State clearly: "I think X is the root cause because Y"
- Write it down
- Be specific, not vague
2. **Test Minimally**
- Make the SMALLEST possible change to test hypothesis
- One variable at a time
- Don't fix multiple things at once
3. **Verify Before Continuing**
- Did it work? Yes → Phase 4
- Didn't work? Form NEW hypothesis
- DON'T add more fixes on top
4. **When You Don't Know**
- Say "I don't understand X"
- Don't pretend to know
- Ask for help
- Research more
### Phase 4: Implementation
**Fix the root cause, not the symptom:**
1. **Create Failing Test Case**
- Simplest possible reproduction
- Automated test if possible
- One-off test script if no framework
- MUST have before fixing
- Use the `superpowers:test-driven-development` skill for writing proper failing tests
2. **Implement Single Fix**
- Address the root cause identified
- ONE change at a time
- No "while I'm here" improvements
- No bundled refactoring
3. **Verify Fix**
- Test passes now?
- No other tests broken?
- Issue actually resolved?
4. **If Fix Doesn't Work**
- STOP
- Count: How many fixes have you tried?
- If < 3: Return to Phase 1, re-analyze with new information
- **If ≥ 3: STOP and question the architecture (step 5 below)**
- DON'T attempt Fix #4 without architectural discussion
5. **If 3+ Fixes Failed: Question Architecture**
**Pattern indicating architectural problem:**
- Each fix reveals new shared state/coupling/problem in different place
- Fixes require "massive refactoring" to implement
- Each fix creates new symptoms elsewhere
**STOP and question fundamentals:**
- Is this pattern fundamentally sound?
- Are we "sticking with it through sheer inertia"?
- Should we refactor architecture vs. continue fixing symptoms?
**Discuss with your human partner before attempting more fixes**
This is NOT a failed hypothesis - this is a wrong architecture.
## Red Flags - STOP and Follow Process
If you catch yourself thinking:
- "Quick fix for now, investigate later"
- "Just try changing X and see if it works"
- "Add multiple changes, run tests"
- "Skip the test, I'll manually verify"
- "It's probably X, let me fix that"
- "I don't fully understand but this might work"
- "Pattern says X but I'll adapt it differently"
- "Here are the main problems: [lists fixes without investigation]"
- Proposing solutions before tracing data flow
- **"One more fix attempt" (when already tried 2+)**
- **Each fix reveals new problem in different place**
**ALL of these mean: STOP. Return to Phase 1.**
**If 3+ fixes failed:** Question the architecture (see Phase 4.5)
## your human partner's Signals You're Doing It Wrong
**Watch for these redirections:**
- "Is that not happening?" - You assumed without verifying
- "Will it show us...?" - You should have added evidence gathering
- "Stop guessing" - You're proposing fixes without understanding
- "Ultrathink this" - Question fundamentals, not just symptoms
- "We're stuck?" (frustrated) - Your approach isn't working
**When you see these:** STOP. Return to Phase 1.
## Why Speed Arguments Fail
"Systematic is slower" is the most common rationalization. The data disagrees:
- Systematic: 15-30 minutes to fix, ~95% first-time fix rate
- Random fixes: 2-3 hours of thrashing, ~40% first-time fix rate, new bugs introduced
"Emergency, no time for process" inverts the truth — emergencies are exactly when guessing is most expensive. Systematic debugging is faster than thrashing, not slower.
## Quick Reference
| Phase | Key Activities | Success Criteria |
|-------|---------------|------------------|
| **1. Root Cause** | Read errors, reproduce, check changes, gather evidence | Understand WHAT and WHY |
| **2. Pattern** | Find working examples, compare | Identify differences |
| **3. Hypothesis** | Form theory, test minimally | Confirmed or new hypothesis |
| **4. Implementation** | Create test, fix, verify | Bug resolved, tests pass |
## When Process Reveals "No Root Cause"
If systematic investigation reveals issue is truly environmental, timing-dependent, or external:
1. You've completed the process
2. Document what you investigated
3. Implement appropriate handling (retry, timeout, error message)
4. Add monitoring/logging for future investigation
**But:** 95% of "no root cause" cases are incomplete investigation.
## Supporting Techniques
These techniques are part of systematic debugging and available in this directory:
- **`root-cause-tracing.md`** - Trace bugs backward through call stack to find original trigger
- **`defense-in-depth.md`** - Add validation at multiple layers after finding root cause
- **`condition-based-waiting.md`** - Replace arbitrary timeouts with condition polling
**Related skills:**
- **superpowers:test-driven-development** - For creating failing test case (Phase 4, Step 1)
- **superpowers:verification-before-completion** - Verify fix worked before claiming success
Files in this package (11)
- CREATION-LOG.md 4 KB
- SKILL.md 8 KB
- condition-based-waiting-example.ts 5 KB
- condition-based-waiting.md 3 KB
- defense-in-depth.md 4 KB
- find-polluter.sh 1 KB
- root-cause-tracing.md 5 KB
- test-academic.md 1 KB
- test-pressure-1.md 2 KB
- test-pressure-2.md 2 KB
- test-pressure-3.md 3 KB
Versions
| Repository | Score | Licence |
|---|---|---|
| This page · dannykkh/skill-olympus | 100 | MIT |
| magnus919/agent-skills | 100 | MIT |
| FrancoStino/opencode-skills-collection | 100 | MIT |
| foryourhealth111-pixel/Vibe-Skills | 100 | Apache-2.0 |
| GanyuanRan/Aegis | 100 | MIT |
| rootcastleco/rei-skills | 100 | MIT |
| jkaloger/lazyspec | 100 | MIT |
| innei/ryugi | 100 | MIT |
| yusixian/anjian | 100 | MIT |
Database snapshot: 13.11.2026 · package version ff383c0de12f (SHA-256 digest of the entire package)
Downloads in the last 30 days: 0 · ranking
Report a problem with this skill: harmful content, incorrect descriptions or an author’s removal request.
Similar skills
- 100systematic-debugging-codex
Systematic 4-phase debugging with Codex-backed root cause investigation. Use only when the user explicitly asks for the Codex-backed debugging workflow. - 95community-systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior. 4-phase root cause investigation — NO fixes without understanding the problem first. - 100debug-systematic
Apply a systematic four-phase debugging workflow when the user asks to debug an issue, investigate a bug, troubleshoot a problem, or find the root cause of unexpected behavior - 100code-showcase-systematic-debugging
Four-phase debugging methodology with root cause analysis. Use when investigating bugs, fixing test failures, or troubleshooting unexpected behavior. Emphasizes NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE FIRST. - 100code-showcase-systematic-debugging
Four-phase debugging methodology with root cause analysis. Use when investigating bugs, fixing test failures, or troubleshooting unexpected behavior. Emphasizes NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE FIRST. - 95argentos-systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior. 4-phase root cause investigation — NO fixes without understanding the problem first.