// Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes
Master coordinator for the Evaluate-Loop workflow v3. Supports GOAL-DRIVEN entry, PARALLEL execution via worker agents, BOARD OF DIRECTORS deliberation, and message bus coordination. Dispatches specialized workers dynamically, monitors via message bus, aggregates results. Uses metadata.json v3 for parallel state tracking. Use when: '/go <goal>', '/conductor implement', 'start track', 'run the loop', 'orchestrate', 'automate track'.
File-based message queue for inter-agent coordination. Used by workers AND board directors to communicate. Provides: progress updates, task completion signals, file locking, board deliberation. Core infrastructure for parallel execution.
Loads relevant patterns and known errors before track planning. Searches conductor/knowledge/ for solutions we've used before and errors we've encountered. Injects findings into the planner prompt to prevent reinventing solutions and repeating mistakes. Triggered automatically by orchestrator before PLAN step.
Manage Conductor tracks, phases, and tasks. Use when working with track status, updating task markers, or navigating between tracks. Enforces the Evaluate-Loop workflow.
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.
Evaluate-Loop Step 1: PLAN. Use this agent when starting a new track or feature to create a detailed execution plan. Reads spec.md, loads project context, and produces a phased plan.md with specific tasks, acceptance criteria, and dependencies. Triggered by: 'plan feature', 'create plan', 'start track', '/conductor implement' (planning phase).
| name | systematic-debugging |
| description | Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes |
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.
NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST
If you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.
Use for ANY technical issue:
Use this ESPECIALLY when:
Don't skip when:
You MUST complete each phase before proceeding to the next.
BEFORE attempting ANY fix:
read_file Error Messages Carefully
Reproduce Consistently
Check Recent Changes
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_search 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 ✗)
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:
Find the pattern before fixing:
Find Working Examples
Compare Against References
Identify Differences
Understand Dependencies
Scientific method:
Form Single Hypothesis
Test Minimally
Verify Before Continuing
When You Don't Know
Fix the root cause, not the symptom:
Create Failing Test Case
orchestrator-supaconductor:test-driven-development skill for writing proper failing testsImplement Single Fix
Verify Fix
If Fix Doesn't Work
If 3+ Fixes Failed: Question Architecture
Pattern indicating architectural problem:
STOP and question fundamentals:
Discuss with your human partner before attempting more fixes
This is NOT a failed hypothesis - this is a wrong architecture.
| Phase | Key Activities | Success Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Root Cause | read_file 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 |
If systematic investigation reveals issue is truly environmental, timing-dependent, or external:
But: 95% of "no root cause" cases are incomplete investigation.
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 triggerdefense-in-depth.md - Add validation at multiple layers after finding root causecondition-based-waiting.md - Replace arbitrary timeouts with condition pollingRelated skills: