debug

name	debug
description	Root-cause analysis — isolate regressions, interpret stack traces, and resolve build/compilation errors
argument-hint	<error message or bug description>
trigger	/oma:debug
level	2

Systematic root-cause analysis for code defects, regressions, and build failures. Traces symptoms to fundamental causes using evidence-driven causal tracing with competing hypotheses.

<Use_When>

• User says "debug", "why is this broken", "root cause", "regression", "stack trace"
• Build fails with cryptic errors
• Tests fail unexpectedly after a change
• A bug has unclear origin </Use_When>

<Do_Not_Use_When>

• User wants a full refactor or new feature -- delegate to executor or ralph
• The problem is obvious (typo, missing import) -- fix directly
• User wants performance optimization -- use the research skill instead </Do_Not_Use_When>

<Why_This_Exists> Blind fixing wastes cycles. Debug applies structured root-cause analysis so fixes are targeted and regressions are prevented. </Why_This_Exists>

<Execution_Policy>

• Never assume; trace each hypothesis with evidence
• Isolate the regression: is it the change or the environment?
• Distinguish correlation from causation
• Track uncertainty explicitly </Execution_Policy>

Phase 1: Gather Evidence

1. Parse the error/symptom from arguments
2. Reproduce the failure — run the failing command and capture output
3. Establish baseline — git diff, recent commits, affected files
4. Form hypotheses:
   • H1: The change introduced the bug
   • H2: Environment/dependency issue
   • H3: Pre-existing latent bug exposed by the change
   • H4: Intermittent/flaky issue

Phase 2: Trace Each Hypothesis

For each hypothesis, gather evidence FOR and AGAINST:

## Hypothesis: <H1 description>
**Evidence FOR:**
- <fact from code/output/logs>

**Evidence AGAINST:**
- <fact that contradicts>

**Verdict:** [CONFIRMED / DISPROVED / UNCERTAIN]

Phase 3: Isolate the Root Cause

1. Binary search on changes: git bisect if regression range is known
2. Check the smallest unit: isolate whether a single file/chunk is responsible
3. Reproduce in isolation: can the bug be triggered independently?

Phase 4: Fix and Verify

1. Apply the targeted fix
2. Re-run the failing command
3. Confirm the fix resolves the issue with no regressions
4. Write a brief note on what caused it and what prevented recurrence

<Tool_Usage>

• Use Bash to run reproduction commands
• Use Read to examine affected code
• Use Grep to trace symbol references
• Use git bisect for regression isolation </Tool_Usage>

``` ## Hypothesis: The new TypeScript version introduced the type error **Evidence FOR:** - Error appeared after npm upgrade typescript@5.x - Same code compiled on typescript@4.x

Evidence AGAINST:

• Other files using the same types compile fine

Verdict: DISPROVED — the issue is file-scoped, not version-wide

</Good>

<Bad>

"Probably a dependency issue. Let's reinstall node_modules."

Why bad: No evidence, no hypothesis testing. Random shooting.
</Bad>
</Examples>

<Escalation_And_Stop_Conditions>
- If root cause is external (OS, hardware, upstream bug): report and stop
- If the fix requires more than isolated changes: escalate to ralph/team
- If bisect takes more than 10 steps: narrow scope first
</Escalation_And_Stop_Conditions>