pb-systematic-debugging

name	pb-systematic-debugging
description	Systematic debugging methodology for finding root causes before attempting fixes. Includes feedback-loop construction, minimization, and hypothesis-driven diagnosis. Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.

pb-systematic-debugging

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

The Six Phases

You MUST complete each phase before proceeding to the next.

Phase 1: Build a Feedback Loop

This is the skill. Everything else is mechanical. If you have a tight pass/fail signal for the bug — one that goes red on this bug — you will find the cause; bisection, hypothesis-testing, and instrumentation all just consume it. If you don't have one, no amount of staring at code will save you.

Spend disproportionate effort here. Be aggressive. Be creative. Refuse to give up.

Ways to construct a feedback loop — try them in roughly this order

1. Failing test at whatever seam reaches the bug — unit, integration, e2e.
2. Curl / HTTP script against a running dev server.
3. CLI invocation with a fixture input, diffing stdout against a known-good snapshot.
4. Headless browser script (Playwright / Puppeteer) — drives the UI, asserts on DOM/console/network.
5. Replay a captured trace. Save a real network request / payload / event log to disk; replay it through the code path in isolation.
6. Throwaway harness. Spin up a minimal subset of the system (one service, mocked deps) that exercises the bug code path with a single function call.
7. Property / fuzz loop. If the bug is "sometimes wrong output", run 1000 random inputs and look for the failure mode.
8. Bisection harness. If the bug appeared between two known states (commit, dataset, version), automate "boot at state X, check, repeat" so you can git bisect run it.
9. Differential loop. Run the same input through old-version vs new-version (or two configs) and diff outputs.
10. HITL bash script. Last resort. If a human must click, drive them with a structured loop so the output feeds back to you.

Build the right feedback loop, and the bug is 90% fixed.

Tighten the loop

Treat the loop as a product. Once you have a loop, tighten it:

• Can I make it faster? (Cache setup, skip unrelated init, narrow the test scope.)
• Can I make the signal sharper? (Assert on the specific symptom, not "didn't crash".)
• Can I make it more deterministic? (Pin time, seed RNG, isolate filesystem, freeze network.)

A 30-second flaky loop is barely better than no loop; a 2-second deterministic one is tight — a debugging superpower.

Non-deterministic bugs

The goal is not a clean repro but a higher reproduction rate. Loop the trigger 100×, parallelise, add stress, narrow timing windows, inject sleeps. A 50%-flake bug is debuggable; 1% is not — keep raising the rate until it's debuggable.

When you genuinely cannot build a loop

Stop and say so explicitly. List what you tried. Ask the user for: (a) access to whatever environment reproduces it, (b) a captured artifact (HAR file, log dump, core dump, screen recording with timestamps), or (c) permission to add temporary production instrumentation. Do not proceed to hypothesise without a loop.

Completion criterion — a tight loop that goes red

Phase 1 is done when the loop is tight and red-capable: you can name one command — a script path, a test invocation, a curl — that you have already run at least once (paste the invocation and its output), and that is:

• Red-capable — it drives the actual bug code path and asserts the user's exact symptom, so it can go red on this bug and green once fixed. Not "runs without erroring" — it must be able to catch this specific bug.
• Deterministic — same verdict every run (flaky bugs: a pinned, high reproduction rate).
• Fast — seconds, not minutes.
• Agent-runnable — you can run it unattended.

If you catch yourself reading code to build a theory before this command exists, stop — jumping straight to a hypothesis is the exact failure this skill prevents. No red-capable command, no Phase 2.

Phase 2: Reproduce + Minimise

Run the loop. Watch it go red — the bug appears.

Confirm:

• The loop produces the failure mode the user described — not a different failure that happens to be nearby. Wrong bug = wrong fix.
• The failure is reproducible across multiple runs (or, for non-deterministic bugs, reproducible at a high enough rate to debug against).
• You have captured the exact symptom (error message, wrong output, slow timing) so later phases can verify the fix actually addresses it.

Minimise

Once it's red, shrink the repro to the smallest scenario that still goes red. Cut inputs, callers, config, data, and steps one at a time, re-running the loop after each cut — keep only what's load-bearing for the failure.

Why bother: a minimal repro shrinks the hypothesis space in Phase 3 (fewer moving parts left to suspect) and becomes the clean regression test in Phase 5.

Done when every remaining element is load-bearing — removing any one of them makes the loop go green.

Do not proceed until you have reproduced and minimised.

Phase 3: Hypothesise

Generate 3–5 ranked hypotheses before testing any of them. Single-hypothesis generation anchors on the first plausible idea.

Each hypothesis must be falsifiable: state the prediction it makes.

Format: "If is the cause, then will make the bug disappear / will make it worse."

If you cannot state the prediction, the hypothesis is a vibe — discard or sharpen it.

Show the ranked list to the user before testing. They often have domain knowledge that re-ranks instantly ("we just deployed a change to #3"), or know hypotheses they've already ruled out. Cheap checkpoint, big time saver. Don't block on it — proceed with your ranking if the user is AFK.

Phase 4: Instrument and Test

Each probe must map to a specific prediction from Phase 3. Change one variable at a time.

Tool preference:

1. Debugger / REPL inspection if the env supports it. One breakpoint beats ten logs.
2. Targeted logs at the boundaries that distinguish hypotheses.
3. Never "log everything and grep".

Tag every debug log with a unique prefix, e.g. [DEBUG-a4f2]. Cleanup at the end becomes a single grep. Untagged logs survive; tagged logs die.

Perf branch. For performance regressions, logs are usually wrong. Instead: establish a baseline measurement (timing harness, performance.now(), profiler, query plan), then bisect. Measure first, fix second.

Multi-component systems: When the system has multiple components (CI → build → signing, API → service → database), add diagnostic instrumentation at EACH component boundary BEFORE proposing fixes. Log what enters, what exits, verify environment/config propagation, check state at each layer. Run once to gather evidence showing WHERE it breaks, THEN analyze to identify the failing component.

Data flow tracing: When error is deep in call stack, trace where the bad value originates. Keep tracing up until you find the source. Fix at source, not at symptom.

Phase 5: Fix + Regression Test

Write the regression test before the fix — but only if there is a correct seam for it.

A correct seam is one where the test exercises the real bug pattern as it occurs at the call site. If the only available seam is too shallow (single-caller test when the bug needs multiple callers, unit test that can't replicate the chain that triggered the bug), a regression test there gives false confidence.

If no correct seam exists, that itself is the finding. Note it. The codebase architecture is preventing the bug from being locked down. Flag this for the next phase.

If a correct seam exists:

1. Turn the minimised repro into a failing test at that seam.
2. Watch it fail.
3. Apply the fix.
4. Watch it pass.
5. Re-run the Phase 1 feedback loop against the original (un-minimised) scenario.

If fix doesn't work:

• 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 (see "If 3+ fixes failed" in Phase 6).
• DON'T attempt Fix #4 without architectural discussion.

Phase 6: Cleanup + Post-Mortem

Required before declaring done:

• Original repro no longer reproduces (re-run the Phase 1 loop)
• Regression test passes (or absence of seam is documented)
• All [DEBUG-...] instrumentation removed (grep the prefix)
• Throwaway prototypes deleted (or moved to a clearly-marked debug location)
• The hypothesis that turned out correct is stated in the commit / PR message — so the next debugger learns

Then ask: what would have prevented this bug? If the answer involves architectural change (no good test seam, tangled callers, hidden coupling) hand off to pb-improve with the specifics. Make the recommendation after the fix is in, not before — you have more information now than when you started.

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 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 6)

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. Build Loop	Construct tight, red-capable feedback loop	One command that catches THIS bug
2. Reproduce + Minimise	Reproduce, shrink to minimal repro	Every remaining element is load-bearing
3. Hypothesise	3–5 ranked, falsifiable hypotheses	Predictions stated, ranked list shown
4. Instrument	Test one variable at a time, tagged logs	Evidence narrows to one hypothesis
5. Fix + Regression	Test before fix, verify fix, re-run loop	Bug resolved, loop goes green
6. Cleanup	Remove instrumentation, post-mortem	No debug artifacts remain

Integration with pb-spec

• During pb-build: If a task fails repeatedly, invoke this skill before retrying
• During pb-refine: Use this to diagnose why a design is infeasible
• Standalone: Use for any debugging need outside the pb-spec workflow