systematic-debugging

name	systematic-debugging
description	4-phase root cause process + passive behavior auto-detection + L1→L4 pressure escalation (includes root-cause-tracing, defense-in-depth, condition-based-waiting techniques)

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.

When to Use

Use for ANY technical issue:

• Test failures
• Bugs in production
• Unexpected behavior
• Performance problems
• Build failures
• Integration issues

Use this ESPECIALLY when:

• Under time pressure (emergencies make guessing tempting)
• "Just one quick fix" seems obvious
• You've already tried multiple fixes
• Previous fix didn't work
• You don't fully understand the issue

Don't skip when:

• Issue seems simple (simple bugs have root causes too)
• You're in a hurry (rushing guarantees rework)
• Manager wants it fixed NOW (systematic is faster than thrashing)

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):

   # 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)

---

🔍 Passive Behavior Detection (Auto-Trigger)

Inspired by PUA (8.5K⭐). The 4 phases above tell you HOW to debug. This section makes sure you actually DO it — by detecting avoidance patterns.

This skill auto-activates when ANY of the following patterns are detected:

Giving Up & Deflecting

• About to say "I cannot" / "I'm unable to solve" / "This is beyond my capabilities"
• Says "This is out of scope" / "Needs manual handling"
• Pushes the problem to user: "Please check..." / "I suggest manually..." / "You might need to..."

Blame-Shifting Without Verification

• Blames environment without verifying: "Probably a permissions issue" / "Probably a network issue"
• Claims "This API doesn't support it" without reading docs
• "This is beyond my knowledge cutoff" (you have search tools — use them)

Busywork Spinning

• Repeatedly tweaking the same code/parameters without producing new information
• Fixes surface issue and stops — doesn't check related issues
• Skips verification, claims "done" without evidence

Passive Waiting

• Stops after fixing, waits for user instructions instead of proactively investigating
• Only answers questions without solving problems
• Encounters auth/network/permission errors and gives up without trying alternatives
• Gives advice instead of code/commands

User Frustration Signals (multi-language)

• "why does this still not work" / "try harder" / "try again"
• "you keep failing" / "stop giving up" / "figure it out"
• "怎么还不行" / "再想想" / "你到底行不行" / "到底能不能搞" / "别给我说不行"

When detected → immediately enter Pressure Escalation below.

Does NOT trigger: First-attempt failures, known fix already executing.

---

⚡ Pressure Escalation (L1 → L4)

The number of consecutive failures determines escalation level. Each level comes with mandatory actions — you MUST complete them before continuing.

Attempt	Level	Mandatory Actions
2nd	L1 — Verbal Warning	Stop current approach. Switch to a fundamentally different solution path. Do NOT tweak the same thing again.
3rd	L2 — Written Feedback	① Search the complete error message with tools. ② Read relevant source code (not just the error line — 50 lines of context). ③ List 3 fundamentally different hypotheses and test each.
4th	L3 — Formal Rescue	Complete ALL 7 items on the Rescue Checklist below. List 3 entirely new hypotheses and verify each one.
5th+	L4 — Last Resort	Desperation mode: minimal PoC in isolated environment. Consider completely different tech stack/approach. If still failing → stop and escalate to human.

7-Point Rescue Checklist (mandatory for L3+)

When L3 or above is triggered, you MUST complete and report on every item:

• Read failure signals word by word — Did you read the full error text? Not just the first line — the ENTIRE message, stack trace, and any warnings above it.
• Proactive search — Did you use tools to search the exact error text? Multi-angle keywords? Official documentation?
• Read raw context — Did you read 50+ lines of source around the failure point? Not just the error line.
• Verify underlying assumptions — Did you confirm ALL assumptions with tools? (versions, paths, dependencies, API behavior, env vars)
• Invert assumptions — Did you try the EXACT OPPOSITE hypothesis from your current direction?
• Minimal isolation — Can you reproduce the problem in the smallest possible scope? (minimal repro script, single API call, one-line test)
• Change direction — Did you switch tools, methods, angles, or frameworks? (Not switching parameters — switching your THINKING)

Anti-Rationalization Table

These excuses are blocked. Using any of them triggers the corresponding escalation.

Your Excuse	Reality	Triggers
"This is beyond my capabilities"	You have search, file reading, and command execution tools. Exhaust them first.	L1
"I suggest the user handle this manually"	That's deflection, not a solution. This is your problem to solve.	L3
"I've already tried everything"	Did you search? Read source? Complete the checklist? "Everything" without evidence is feelings.	L2
"It's probably an environment issue"	Did you VERIFY that? Unverified attribution is blame-shifting.	L2
"I need more context"	You have tools. Investigate first, ask only what truly requires human knowledge.	L2
"This API doesn't support it"	Did you read the docs? Actually verify?	L2
Repeatedly tweaking same code	That's the definition of insanity. Switch to fundamentally different approach.	L1
"I cannot solve this problem"	Last chance. Complete the 7-Point Rescue Checklist before making that claim.	L4
Claims "done" without verification	Where's the evidence? Run build/test/curl yourself. Prove it.	L1
Waiting for user to tell next steps	Take initiative. What's the logical next step? Do it.	L1
Only giving advice, no code	Deliver solutions, not suggestions. Write the code, run the command.	L1

---

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.

Common Rationalizations

Excuse	Reality
"Issue is simple, don't need process"	Simple issues have root causes too. Process is fast for simple bugs.
"Emergency, no time for process"	Systematic debugging is FASTER than guess-and-check thrashing.
"Just try this first, then investigate"	First fix sets the pattern. Do it right from the start.
"I'll write test after confirming fix works"	Untested fixes don't stick. Test first proves it.
"Multiple fixes at once saves time"	Can't isolate what worked. Causes new bugs.
"Reference too long, I'll adapt the pattern"	Partial understanding guarantees bugs. Read it completely.
"I see the problem, let me fix it"	Seeing symptoms ≠ understanding root cause.
"One more fix attempt" (after 2+ failures)	3+ failures = architectural problem. Question pattern, don't fix again.

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
Auto-Trigger	Detect giving-up / blame-shifting / spinning / passivity	Enter Pressure Escalation
Escalation L1→L4	Progressive mandatory actions per failure count	Force new approaches

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

Real-World Impact

From debugging sessions:

• Systematic approach: 15-30 minutes to fix
• Random fixes approach: 2-3 hours of thrashing
• First-time fix rate: 95% vs 40%
• New bugs introduced: Near zero vs common