convergence-debug

name	convergence-debug
description	Systematic root cause investigation. Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior. Four phases: investigate, analyze patterns, hypothesize, fix. No fixes without root cause. If 3+ fixes fail, stop and question the architecture.

Systematic Debugging

Think carefully and step-by-step before responding — this problem is harder than it looks.

Find the root cause before attempting fixes. Random fixes waste time and create new bugs.

The Rule

NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST.

If you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.

When to Use

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

Use this ESPECIALLY when under time pressure. Systematic debugging is faster than guess-and-check thrashing.

The Four Phases

Complete each phase before proceeding to the next.

Phase 0 — Check Past Learnings

Before investigating, dispatch the learnings-researcher agent with the error or symptom description. If a past learning matches, it may shortcut the investigation. Past learnings are hints, not answers — still verify against the current codebase.

Phase 1 — Root Cause Investigation

Before attempting ANY fix:

1. Read error messages carefully. Don't skip past errors. Read stack traces completely. Note line numbers, file paths, error codes. The error message often contains the exact solution.

2. Reproduce consistently. Can you trigger it reliably? What are the exact steps? If not reproducible, gather more data — don't guess.

3. Check recent changes. git diff, recent commits, new dependencies, config changes, environmental differences.

4. In multi-component systems, add diagnostic logging at each boundary before fixing anything:

   For EACH component boundary:
     - Log what enters
     - Log what exits
     - Verify config propagation
   Run once. The evidence shows WHERE it breaks.
   

5. Trace data flow. Where does the bad value originate? What called this with the bad value? Keep tracing up until you find the source. Fix at source, not at symptom.

Phase 2 — Pattern Analysis

1. Find working examples. Similar working code in the same codebase.
2. Compare against references. If implementing a pattern, read the reference completely — don't skim.
3. Identify every difference between working and broken, however small. Don't assume "that can't matter."
4. Understand dependencies. What other components, settings, environment does this need?

Causal Chain Gate

Before proposing any fix, explain the full chain from trigger to symptom. Every link must be accounted for:

"A happens → which causes B → which causes C (the symptom we see)"

No gaps allowed. No "somehow A leads to C." If a link is uncertain, state a prediction: "If B is really the cause, then we should also see X." Test the prediction. If the prediction is wrong, the link is wrong — go back.

Phase 3 — Hypothesis and Testing

1. Form a single hypothesis. State it clearly: "I think X is the root cause because Y." Write it down.
2. Test minimally. Make the smallest possible change to test the hypothesis. One variable at a time.
3. Evaluate. Did it work? Yes: proceed to Phase 4. No: form a new hypothesis. Do NOT add more fixes on top.

Phase 4 — Fix

1. Create a failing test that reproduces the bug. Simplest possible reproduction.

2. Implement a single fix addressing the root cause. One change. No "while I'm here" improvements.

3. Verify. Test passes? Other tests still pass? Issue actually resolved?

4. If fix doesn't work:

   • Attempts < 3: Return to Phase 1 with new information
   • Attempts >= 3: STOP. Classify the failure:
     • Hypotheses point to different subsystems → likely a design/architecture problem, suggest /convergence-architecture
     • Evidence contradicts itself → wrong mental model, step back and re-read everything from scratch
     • Works locally, fails in CI/prod → environment problem, compare configs
     • Fix works but prediction was wrong → you fixed a symptom, real cause still active
   • Discuss with the human before attempting more.

5. Defense-in-depth check. After confirming the fix, grep for the same root cause pattern in other files. If found, flag: "Same pattern exists in [files]. Worth fixing there too?"

6. Compound nudge. If the root cause was non-obvious (required 3+ hypotheses or architectural escalation), suggest: "This was a non-trivial root cause. Consider running /convergence-compound to capture what was learned."

Red Flags — STOP and Return to Phase 1

If you catch yourself thinking:

• "Quick fix for now, investigate later"
• "Just try changing X and see if it works"
• "I don't fully understand but this might work"
• "One more fix attempt" (when 2+ have already failed)
• Proposing solutions before tracing data flow

Anti-Patterns

Bad	Why	Do Instead
"Probably X, let me fix that"	Guessing, not investigating	Phase 1 first
Multiple fixes at once	Can't isolate what worked	One variable at a time
"Simple issue, skip the process"	Simple bugs have root causes too	Process is fast for simple bugs
Fix #4 without asking	3 failures = architectural problem	Stop, question fundamentals with human
Fixing the symptom	Masks the real problem	Trace to source, fix there