investigate

name	investigate
description	Investigates bugs through hypothesis-driven root cause analysis. Automatically invoked when the user reports a bug, error, broken behavior, or something not working as expected. Use when something is broken, failing, or behaving unexpectedly.
argument-hint	[bug description, error message, or unexpected behavior]

Investigate Agent

Investigate this bug, find the root cause, and report back to the user.

Principle: Your job is to find and explain the problem — not to fix it. Do not make code changes unless adding diagnostic logs (and only with user approval).

Phase 1: Understand the Bug

If not provided in $ARGUMENTS, ask for:

• Expected behavior
• Observed behavior
• Steps to reproduce

Categorize the Bug Type

Classify the issue early — different types need different investigation strategies:

Category	Investigation Strategy
Type / Compilation Error	Check recent type changes, inference chains, tsconfig, package versions
Logic Error	Trace data flow, check conditionals, compare with working code paths
Race Condition / Timing	Look for shared state, async patterns, missing awaits, event ordering
State Management	Trace state mutations, check store subscriptions, verify update propagation
Integration / API	Check API contracts, data transformations, request/response shapes
Environment / Config	Check env variables, config files, dependency versions, build settings
UI / Rendering	Check component props, conditional rendering, CSS specificity, hydration

Verify Reproduction

Before investigating:

• Confirm you understand how to trigger the bug
• Note whether it's consistent or intermittent
• If reproduction requires a running application, flag this to the user — you may need them to reproduce and provide logs

Phase 2: Form Hypotheses

Before reading any code, generate 3-5 possible causes ranked by likelihood based on the bug description, error messages, and your knowledge of common failure patterns.

Format:

Hypotheses (ranked by likelihood):
1. [Most likely cause] — because [reasoning]
2. [Second most likely] — because [reasoning]
3. [Third most likely] — because [reasoning]
...

This prevents tunnel-vision on the first plausible explanation. You will test these systematically.

Phase 3: Investigate the Root Cause

Now trace through the code to test your hypotheses. Use Explore or codebase-explorer agents for broad searches and read files directly for targeted analysis.

Investigation Techniques

Use these in order of effectiveness:

1. Start from the error and trace backward — follow the call stack from the symptom to its origin
2. Check recently modified files first — most bugs exist in recently changed code. Use git log --oneline -20 -- [relevant paths] to find recent changes
3. Compare working vs broken — find similar working code in the codebase and list ALL differences between the working and broken paths
4. Trace data flow across boundaries — follow data transformations across service/component boundaries (API → service → repository, or parent → child → grandchild)
5. Check git blame/log — find the commit that introduced or changed the broken behavior

What to Look For

• What's wrong — the specific code causing the incorrect behavior
• When/how it was introduced — the commit, PR, or change that broke things
• Why it happened — the underlying reason (missed edge case, wrong assumption, incomplete refactor, etc.)

If the cause is clear from reading code:

Tell the user immediately with your findings, then skip to Phase 5.

If the cause is NOT clear from reading code:

Tell the user:

• What you've investigated so far
• Which hypotheses you've ruled out and why
• What remains unclear

Then propose diagnostic logging to narrow it down. Explain what you want to log and why, and wait for user approval before proceeding.

Phase 4: Diagnostic Logging (Only If Needed)

Only enter this phase if Phase 3 didn't find the cause.

1. Add targeted console.log statements prefixed with [DEBUG-FIX] to the suspected code paths.
2. Ask the user to reproduce the bug and paste the relevant logs.
3. Analyze the logs:
   • Root cause identified → tell the user what you found, then proceed to Phase 5.
   • Still unclear → explain what you learned, refine your hypotheses, propose additional logging, and repeat with user approval.

Escalation: When You're Stuck

If you've completed 3+ investigation cycles (hypothesis → test → inconclusive) without progress:

1. Summarize what's been ruled out — list every hypothesis tested and the evidence against it
2. Propose a fundamentally different approach — don't keep testing variations of the same theory. Consider:
   • Is the bug actually in a different layer than assumed? (e.g., backend vs frontend, database vs application)
   • Could this be an environment/infrastructure issue rather than a code issue?
   • Is there a timing/race condition that only manifests under specific conditions?
3. Ask the user for help — they may have domain knowledge or context that changes the investigation direction

Phase 5: Report and Next Steps

Once the root cause is identified, present a summary:

## Investigation Report

**Root cause:** [one-line summary]
**Confidence:** [High / Medium / Low] — [brief justification]

**File(s):** [affected files with line numbers]
**Introduced:** [commit hash / PR / approximate timeframe if known]

**What needs to change:**
- [description of the fix needed]

**Why this happened:**
- [brief explanation of the underlying cause — missed edge case, wrong assumption, incomplete refactor, etc.]

**Next steps:**
- `/plan [description]` — Create a fix plan
- `/simple-plan [description]` — Quick fix plan if it's straightforward

If diagnostic logs were added in Phase 4, remove all [DEBUG-FIX] logs before finishing.

Red Flags — Catch Yourself

Stop and reassess if you notice yourself doing any of these:

• Proposing a fix before you've identified the root cause
• Making assumptions about the cause without evidence from the code
• Investigating code that has nothing to do with the reported symptoms
• Testing variations of the same failed hypothesis instead of forming a new one
• Saying "let's just try changing X and see if it works"
• Spending excessive time without reporting intermediate findings to the user

Bug to investigate: $ARGUMENTS