debug-error

name	debug-error
description	Systematic debugging workflow for errors and bugs. Use when debugging errors, investigating bugs, troubleshooting issues, or when something isn't working as expected. Integrates Sentry MCP for production error context, Firecrawl for researching fix patterns, and Sequential Thinking for complex multi-step diagnosis.
license	MIT

Debug Error Skill

Systematic approach to debugging errors and unexpected behavior. Works with any project.

MANDATORY: Pre-Debug Checks

BEFORE debugging, you MUST:

1. Read Relevant Documentation

README.md (project overview)
src/[domain]/@_[domain]-README.md (domain-specific behavior)
docs/ (system documentation)

2. Check for Sentry Context (if production error)

If the error is from production and Sentry is configured, fetch the full context:

sentry:search_issues
{
 "organizationSlug": "<ORG_SLUG>",
 "query": "<error message or description>",
 "projectSlugOrId": "<PROJECT_SLUG>",
 "regionUrl": "<REGION_URL>",
 "limit": 5
}

Then get details for the matching issue:

sentry:get_sentry_resource
{
 "organizationSlug": "<ORG_SLUG>",
 "resourceType": "issue",
 "resourceId": "<ISSUE_ID>"
}

Extract: stacktrace, breadcrumbs, tags (browser, OS, URL, release), event frequency.

3. Check Database State (if data-related)

If data is involved, verify expectations against reality using Supabase MCP or direct queries.

4. Verification Statement (REQUIRED)

Before diving into debug, state:

"Pre-debug check:
- README/docs read: [list]
- Sentry context: [YES with details / NO — not production / not configured]
- Database state verified: [YES/NO — findings]
- Backend API checked: [YES/NO — status]
- Error scope identified: [FE only / BE only / Integration / Data]"

---

Debug Process

1. Reproduce → 2. Isolate → 3. Research → 4. Identify → 5. Fix → 6. Verify → 7. Prevent

---

Phase 1: Reproduce

Build a tight feedback loop first

This is the skill — everything after is mechanical. Before reading code to build a theory, construct one command that goes red on this bug and will go green when it's fixed (adapted from mattpocock/skills, MIT). In rough order of preference: a failing test at the nearest seam → a curl/HTTP script against the dev server → a CLI invocation with a fixture input → a headless browser script → replaying a captured trace/payload through the code path in isolation.

The loop is done when it is:

• Red-capable — asserts the user's exact symptom, not "runs without erroring"
• Deterministic — same verdict every run (flaky bugs: loop the trigger to raise the reproduction rate until debuggable)
• Fast — seconds, not minutes
• Already run once — you can paste the invocation and its red output

If you catch yourself forming a hypothesis before this command exists, stop — that is the exact failure this phase prevents. If you genuinely cannot build a loop, say so explicitly, list what you tried, and ask for a captured artifact (HAR, log dump, recording) instead of proceeding blind.

Gather Information

Error Report:
- What happened: [description]
- Expected behavior: [what should happen]
- Steps to reproduce:
 1. [step]
 2. [step]
- Environment: [browser/OS/Node version]
- Error message: [exact message]
- Stack trace: [if available]
- First seen: [when — correlate with deploys]

Questions to Determine Scope

• Can you reproduce it consistently?
• When did it start happening? (check git log for recent changes)
• Does it happen for all users or specific ones? (check Sentry tag distribution)
• Is it environment-specific? (dev vs staging vs production)

---

Phase 2: Isolate

Narrow Down the Problem

Works in: Fails in:
├─ Production? ├─ Production?
├─ Staging? ├─ Staging?
├─ Local? ├─ Local?
├─ All browsers? ├─ Specific browser?
├─ All users? ├─ Specific user?
└─ All data? └─ Specific data?

Trace the Data Flow

For data-related bugs, trace the full pipeline:

User Action → Frontend Handler → API Call → Backend Controller → Database → Response → State Update → Render

Identify where the data goes wrong by checking each boundary.

Minimise the repro

Once the feedback loop is red, shrink the repro to the smallest scenario that still goes red: cut inputs, callers, config, and data one at a time, re-running the loop after each cut. Done when every remaining element is load-bearing — removing any one makes the loop go green. A minimal repro shrinks the hypothesis space and becomes the regression test in Phase 6.

Binary Search (when completely lost)

1. Comment out half the code
2. Does error still occur?

• Yes: Bug is in remaining code
• No: Bug is in commented code

3. Repeat until isolated

---

Phase 3: Research (NEW — research the error pattern before fixing)

For non-trivial errors, research the correct fix before implementing:

firecrawl:firecrawl_search
{
 "query": "<framework> <exact error message> fix best practice",
 "limit": 5,
 "sources": [{ "type": "web" }]
}

Then scrape the most relevant result:

firecrawl:firecrawl_scrape
{
 "url": "<best-result-url>",
 "formats": ["markdown"],
 "onlyMainContent": true
}

Also check official docs via Context7 if the error relates to a library:

context7:resolve-library-id
{
 "libraryName": "<library>",
 "query": "<error description>"
}

Trust hierarchy: Official docs > maintainer posts > engineering blogs > Stack Overflow (current year, high votes).

---

Phase 4: Identify Root Cause

Common Error Types

Error	Likely Cause	First Check
TypeError: Cannot read property 'x' of undefined	Null/undefined access	Where does the value come from? Fix the producer.
ReferenceError: x is not defined	Variable not declared	Check imports, scope, circular dependencies
SyntaxError	Invalid code	Check syntax, missing brackets, JSON parsing
Network Error	API/connectivity	Check endpoint, CORS, auth, network tab
CORS Error	Cross-origin blocked	Check server CORS config, proxy setup
401 Unauthorized	Auth issue	Check token expiry, refresh logic, cookie settings
404 Not Found	Wrong URL/missing resource	Check route definition, dynamic params, API path
500 Internal Server Error	Server-side bug	Check server logs, not frontend code
Unhandled Promise Rejection	Missing await or catch	Find the unhandled async chain
Hydration mismatch	Server/client render differs	Check for browser-only APIs in SSR, dynamic content

Root Cause Formulation

Before writing any fix, state:

1. What happened: The specific runtime state that caused the error
2. Why it happened: The upstream reason that state was possible
3. Where to fix it: The correct layer — usually NOT the crash site

---

Phase 5: Fix

Before Fixing

• Understand WHY it's broken, not just WHERE
• Consider if this fix could break something else
• Check if other callers of the affected function exist
• Verify the fix matches what research recommends

Anti-Pattern Checklist

Do NOT apply these as the sole fix:

• Adding ?. to suppress a TypeError → fix why the value is null
• Wrapping in try/catch and swallowing → fix the underlying error
• Adding ?? [] fallback → handle loading/error states explicitly
• Adding if guards at the consumer → fix the producer

Fix Principles

1. Fix at the root cause layer, not the crash site (unless they're the same)
2. Make invalid state unrepresentable
3. Follow existing project conventions
4. If the fix touches a shared function, verify all callers

---

Phase 6: Verify

Test the Fix

• Phase 1 feedback loop re-run and now green (paste the invocation + output)
• Minimised repro converted into a regression test at a correct seam — one that exercises the real bug pattern; if no correct seam exists, document that as an architectural finding instead of writing a false-confidence test
• Original bug no longer occurs
• Related functionality still works
• Edge cases handled
• Tests pass (if they exist)

Regression Check

# Run tests
npm test
# Or framework-specific
pytest
cargo test
go test ./...

---

Phase 7: Prevent

Add Monitoring

If the bug could recur in a different form, add monitoring:

• Custom Sentry context for the affected code path
• Breadcrumbs for key user actions
• Structured logging for data flow checkpoints

Document Non-Obvious Fixes

If the bug was caused by a non-obvious interaction, add a comment explaining the constraint:

// Profile can be null for users who haven't completed onboarding.
// The API returns null (not 404) in this case. See: ISSUE-123.

---

Debug Checklist

## Bug Investigation: [Title]

**Pre-Debug:**
- [ ] Docs/README read
- [ ] Sentry context fetched (if applicable)
- [ ] Database state checked (if data-related)
- [ ] Error scope identified

**Investigation:**
- [ ] Can reproduce locally (or have Sentry reproduction)
- [ ] Isolated to specific component/function/layer
- [ ] Research completed (Firecrawl/Context7)
- [ ] Root cause identified and stated

**Fix:**
- [ ] Fix addresses root cause (not symptoms)
- [ ] No anti-patterns used as sole fix
- [ ] Side effects checked (other callers)
- [ ] Tests pass

**Prevention:**
- [ ] Monitoring added (if applicable)
- [ ] Documentation updated (if non-obvious)

---

Quick Debug Commands

# Check recent changes to a file
git log --oneline -20 -- path/to/file.ts

# Find when a bug was introduced
git bisect start
git bisect bad HEAD
git bisect good <known-good-commit>

# Check what changed between two commits
git diff <commit1>..<commit2> -- path/to/file.ts

# Search for all usages of a function
rg "functionName" --type ts