Systematic 4-phase debugging with root cause investigation. Use when fixing bugs to prevent random fixes.
version
1.1.1
model
composer-2.5-fast
invoked_by
both
user_invocable
true
tools
["Read","Write","Edit","Bash","Glob","Grep"]
best_practices
["Investigate root cause before any fix","Reproduce the bug reliably first","Compare working vs broken examples","Make one change at a time"]
error_handling
strict
streaming
supported
verified
true
lastVerifiedAt
"2026-02-22T00:00:00.000Z"
Mode: Cognitive/Prompt-Driven — No standalone utility script; use via agent context.
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.
Iron Laws
NEVER propose or implement a fix before completing Phase 1 root cause investigation — a fix without root cause is a guess that will fail or create new bugs.
ALWAYS reproduce the bug reliably before debugging — if you can't reproduce it consistently, you're not debugging the real issue.
NEVER make more than one change at a time when testing a hypothesis — multiple simultaneous changes make it impossible to determine which change fixed the problem.
ALWAYS stop and question the architecture after 3 failed fix attempts — if each fix reveals a new problem, the issue is architectural, not symptomatic.
NEVER skip creating a failing test case before implementing the fix — without a test, you cannot verify the fix worked or that it won't regress.
When to Use
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)
When to Use: debugging vs smart-debug
Scenario
Use debugging
Use smart-debug
Simple, locally reproducible bug
Yes
Overkill
Root cause area already known
Yes
Optional
Static analysis / code review bug
Yes
No
Runtime / production issue
Start here
Preferred
Intermittent / hard-to-reproduce
Escalate
Yes
Needs hypothesis ranking gate
No
Yes (blocking)
Needs instrumentation + log analysis
No
Yes
Observability-driven (traces, APM)
No
Yes
Rule of thumb: Start with debugging for straightforward bugs. Escalate to smart-debug when you need hypothesis ranking, structured instrumentation, or the bug is intermittent/production-only.
See also: .claude/skills/smart-debug/SKILL.md
The Four Phases
You MUST complete each phase before proceeding to the next.
Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation
BEFORE attempting ANY fix:
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
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
Check Recent Changes
What changed that could cause this?
Git diff, recent commits
New dependencies, config changes
Environmental differences
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: Workflowecho"=== Secrets available in workflow: ==="echo"IDENTITY: ${IDENTITY:+SET}${IDENTITY:-UNSET}"# Layer 2: Build scriptecho"=== Env vars in build script: ==="env | grep IDENTITY || echo"IDENTITY not in environment"# Layer 3: Signing scriptecho"=== 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 OK, workflow - build FAIL)
For distributed/microservice systems — prefer OpenTelemetry traces:
# Query traces by component (preferred over manual echo/env logging)
pnpm trace:query --component <service-name> --event <event-name> --since <ISO-8601> --limit 200
# When trace ID is already known
pnpm trace:query --trace-id <traceId> --compact --since <ISO-8601> --limit 200
Fragmented traces (each service has its own root span, trace IDs don't match across boundaries)
= broken context propagation. Fix traceparent/tracestate header forwarding before investigating business logic.
Instrumentation Gate (before hypothesis generation): If runtime behavior remains unclear after static analysis, add targeted log statements at key decision nodes before generating hypotheses. Use session-scoped log files (.claude/context/tmp/debug-{sessionId}.log) to capture runtime state. Human-in-the-loop: ask the user to reproduce the bug after instrumentation is added, before analyzing results. Only proceed to Phase 2 once runtime evidence is collected.
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:
Find Working Examples
Locate similar working code in same codebase
What works that's similar to what's broken?
Compare Against References
If implementing pattern, read reference implementation COMPLETELY
Don't skim - read every line
Understand the pattern fully before applying
Identify Differences
What's different between working and broken?
List every difference, however small
Don't assume "that can't matter"
Understand Dependencies
What other components does this need?
What settings, config, environment?
What assumptions does it make?
Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing
Scientific method:
Form Single Hypothesis
State clearly: "I think X is the root cause because Y"
Write it down
Be specific, not vague
Test Minimally
Make the SMALLEST possible change to test hypothesis
One variable at a time
Don't fix multiple things at once
Verify Before Continuing
Did it work? Yes - Phase 4
Didn't work? Form NEW hypothesis
DON'T add more fixes on top
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:
Create Failing Test Case
Simplest possible reproduction
Automated test if possible
One-off test script if no framework
MUST have before fixing
Use the tdd skill for writing proper failing tests
Implement Single Fix
Address the root cause identified
ONE change at a time
No "while I'm here" improvements
No bundled refactoring
Verify Fix
Test passes now?
No other tests broken?
Issue actually resolved?
Cleanup
Remove all instrumentation added for this debug session (log statements, temporary diagnostics)
Verify cleanup: grep for the session debug ID or instrumentation markers to confirm no debug artifacts remain in production code
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
find-polluter - For test pollution bisection (flaky tests due to shared state): run .claude/tools/analysis/find-polluter/find-polluter.sh (or find-polluter.ps1 on Windows) from the project root to isolate which test pollutes the suite.
Related skills:
tdd - For creating failing test case (Phase 4, Step 1)
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
AI-Assisted Debugging & Modern Observability (2025+)
OpenTelemetry: The New Stack Trace
For distributed systems, OpenTelemetry traces replace manual echo/env evidence gathering. A trace shows the complete request journey across service boundaries via span IDs and trace IDs (W3C Trace Context standard: traceparent/tracestate headers).
Evidence hierarchy for distributed failures (prefer in order):
Common symptom — fragmented traces:
Each service shows its own root span, trace IDs don't match across boundaries. This means context propagation is broken — fix header forwarding before investigating business logic.
AI-Assisted Root Cause Analysis
LLM-based debugging agents (2025 pattern) augment Phase 1 by reading production traces and correlating with codebase context to suggest minimal reproduction cases.
Use AI assistance for:
High-complexity distributed failures with multi-service blast radius
On-call incidents requiring rapid root cause identification
Converting production traces into deterministic test reproducers
Do NOT skip Phase 1 when using AI assistance. AI suggestions are hypotheses — apply Phase 3 (hypothesis testing) before implementing any AI-suggested fix. AI cannot replace systematic investigation; it accelerates evidence gathering.
Anti-Patterns
Anti-Pattern
Why It Fails
Correct Approach
"Quick fix for now, investigate later"
The quick fix becomes permanent; the root cause resurfaces as a different symptom
Always complete Phase 1 before touching production code
Making multiple changes at once
Can't determine which change fixed or broke the system; creates regressions
One change per hypothesis test; verify before the next change
Proposing AI-suggested fixes without testing
AI suggestions are hypotheses, not facts; applying them blindly skips Phase 3
Treat AI suggestions as hypotheses to test, not answers to implement
Attempting a 4th fix after 3 failures
N+1 fix attempts on a broken approach compound the problem
After 3 failed fixes, escalate to architecture review
Skipping the failing test before the fix
You can't verify the fix worked, and regressions are invisible
Create the failing test first; it proves root cause and verifies fix
Memory Protocol (MANDATORY)
Before starting:
Read .claude/context/memory/learnings.md
After completing:
New pattern -> .claude/context/memory/learnings.md
Issue found -> .claude/context/memory/issues.md
Decision made -> .claude/context/memory/decisions.md
ASSUME INTERRUPTION: If it's not in memory, it didn't happen.
