// Four-phase debugging methodology with root cause analysis. Use when investigating bugs, fixing test failures, or troubleshooting unexpected behavior. Emphasizes NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE FIRST.
Core component library and design system patterns. Use when building UI, using design tokens, or working with the component library.
Formik form handling with validation patterns. Use when building forms, implementing validation, or handling form submission.
GraphQL queries, mutations, and code generation patterns. Use when creating GraphQL operations, working with Apollo Client, or generating types.
Modern React UI patterns for loading states, error handling, and data fetching. Use when building UI components, handling async data, or managing UI states.
Jest testing patterns, factory functions, mocking strategies, and TDD workflow. Use when writing unit tests, creating test factories, or following TDD red-green-refactor cycle.
| name | systematic-debugging |
| description | Four-phase debugging methodology with root cause analysis. Use when investigating bugs, fixing test failures, or troubleshooting unexpected behavior. Emphasizes NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE FIRST. |
NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST.
Never apply symptom-focused patches that mask underlying problems. Understand WHY something fails before attempting to fix it.
Before touching any code:
Root Cause Tracing Technique:
1. Observe the symptom - Where does the error manifest?
2. Find immediate cause - Which code directly produces the error?
3. Ask "What called this?" - Map the call chain upward
4. Keep tracing up - Follow invalid data backward through the stack
5. Find original trigger - Where did the problem actually start?
Key principle: Never fix problems solely where errors appearโalways trace to the original trigger.
Apply the scientific method:
Critical rule: If THREE or more fixes fail consecutively, STOP. This signals architectural problems requiring discussion, not more patches.
Stop immediately if you catch yourself thinking:
Consecutive fixes revealing new problems in different areas indicates architectural issues:
1. Read the FULL error message and stack trace
2. Identify which assertion failed and why
3. Check test setup - is the test environment correct?
4. Check test data - are mocks/fixtures correct?
5. Trace to the source of unexpected value
1. Capture the full stack trace
2. Identify the line that throws
3. Check what values are undefined/null
4. Trace backward to find where bad value originated
5. Add validation at the source
1. Use git bisect to find the breaking commit
2. Compare the change with previous working version
3. Identify what assumption changed
4. Fix at the source of the assumption violation
1. Look for race conditions
2. Check for shared mutable state
3. Examine async operation ordering
4. Look for timing dependencies
5. Add deterministic waits or proper synchronization
Before claiming a bug is fixed:
Systematic debugging achieves ~95% first-time fix rate vs ~40% with ad-hoc approaches.
Signs you're doing it right: