| name | upstream-dependency-debug |
| version | 1.1.0 |
| user-invocable | true |
| description | When a bug involves a named third-party library/framework, or symptoms correlate strongly with a platform/library-specific behavior, evaluate 'upgrade the dependency' BEFORE piling on local workarounds. Walks through a 4-step decision (is it upstream? → check Changelog/Release Notes → upgrade at low semver risk → only workaround if upgrade is infeasible), the upgrade engineering discipline (package-manager consistency, post-upgrade verification chain, semver risk, dedup check), and a result table. Use this skill whenever a bug smells like an upstream library issue — symptoms tied to a specific framework version, silent failures where code looks correct, workarounds that keep growing, or platform-specific rendering bugs that CSS cannot fix. Triggers — 「升级依赖」「依赖升级修复」「这个 bug 升级依赖能解决吗」「查 changelog 修复」「优先升级依赖」「升级依赖还是堆 workaround」 / dependency upgrade, upgrade to fix bug, changelog fix, avoid workaround, upgrade library to fix. |
Dependency Upgrade as Bug Fix
Role: A decision-and-execution methodology for the case where the cleanest fix for a bug is upgrading a dependency rather than writing a local workaround. It is a methodology enhancement: it can be invoked standalone, and it is referenced by PDCA hosts during their technical-analysis phase (as the optimistic counterpart to the "no viable solution" branch).
Why this skill exists
When engineers (and AI agents) hit a bug, the reflex is to patch it locally — add a guard, tweak a timer, hide an element, override a CSS rule. This reflex is often wrong when the root cause lives in an upstream dependency: the local patch becomes a workaround that papers over someone else's bug, and workarounds compound.
The pattern that this skill exists to break:
A bug's real fix is "upgrade the library," but nobody checks the upstream Changelog. Instead, three layers of local workarounds get stacked — a magic-number timer, a UX degradation, a CSS override that the platform silently ignores. Each layer fails in a slightly different way on real devices. Weeks later, someone finally reads the Changelog, finds the fix shipped two minor versions ago, and a one-line package.json bump replaces all three workarounds.
Anchored case (sanitized): a rich-text editor's task-list item showed an abnormal selection highlight during IME composition on iOS. Three local workarounds were attempted and each failed on real devices — the last one because iOS forcibly renders the native ::selection background during composition and no CSS can override it. The actual fix was upgrading the editor library two minor versions, where the upstream had already patched the widget-reuse behavior near composition. Zero local code changes.
The meta-lesson:
Before writing a workaround, ask: "Is this bug already fixed upstream?" A one-line dependency upgrade is often cheaper, more correct, and more durable than any local patch.
When to use
Strong signals (any one is enough — this skill is meant to be invoked readily, because the "check upstream first" instinct is the thing people forget):
- The bug involves a named third-party library, framework, or API and correlates with a specific version.
- Symptoms are platform/library-specific — the bug reproduces on iOS but not desktop Chrome, or only with a particular framework's rendering path, or only after a recent dependency bump.
- Silent failure: the call chain looks complete, parameters are correct, logs show execution — but the behavior is wrong. This often points to a platform/runtime interception that the library is supposed to handle.
- Workarounds are piling up: you've already written one or two local patches and they each only partially work, or they introduce new degradation (magic-number timing, UX downgrades, CSS that doesn't take effect).
- A CSS/layout bug where
!important overrides silently fail on a specific platform — a strong sign of platform-enforced rendering that no CSS can fix.
The 4-step decision order
When the signals above fire, walk this order before writing any local patch:
- Attribute the bug: is it more likely upstream or in our code? Signals of upstream: symptoms tied to a platform/library-specific behavior; reproduces only in a specific environment; the library owns the misbehaving layer (selection, composition, rendering).
- If likely upstream — check the dependency's Changelog / Release Notes / Issues for a matching fix. Search the dependency's changelog for keywords matching the symptom (e.g.
composition, selection, Safari, iOS, widget, cursor). Confirm whether a fix version exists and whether the project is currently below it.
- Prefer upgrading the dependency (patch/minor, low semver risk) over writing a local workaround. For libraries that follow semver, minor/patch upgrades within the same major version carry no breaking changes by contract.
- Only consider a workaround when upgrade is infeasible — breaking change in the only available fix version, the project is version-locked, or upstream hasn't fixed it yet. If you must workaround, annotate it as temporary with its trigger condition and the upstream issue it tracks.
Anti-patterns (forbidden moves)
- Stacking workarounds before checking the Changelog — the #1 failure mode. The upstream fix may already exist.
- Assuming "CSS
!important will handle it" on a platform-enforced rendering path — some platform behaviors (e.g. iOS composition-time ::selection) ignore CSS entirely.
- Magic-number timing workarounds (
setTimeout 120ms after compositionend) — they mask the symptom, break under load, and never address the cause.
- UX-degradation workarounds (downgrade a widget to a source-code marker during composition) — they hide the bug at the cost of the user experience, and often don't even fully hide it.
- Treating "upgrade feels risky" as reason enough to workaround without actually reading the Changelog's breaking-change notes — the risk is usually lower than the workaround's maintenance cost.
Upgrade engineering discipline
Once the decision to upgrade is made, execute it safely. These checks exist because each one corresponds to a real failure observed in practice:
- Package-manager consistency: use the package manager the project actually uses — determine it by which lockfile is tracked (
git ls-files package-lock.json yarn.lock pnpm-lock.yaml), not by the system-level packageManager field. The system may force pnpm while the project uses npm; mixing them produces lockfile pollution and duplicate package versions. Do not mix.
- Post-upgrade verification chain:
typecheck + build + full unit-test suite + real-device/target-environment verification. A dependency bump that passes typecheck but breaks runtime on the target device is not done.
- semver risk assessment: patch/minor within the same major is low-risk for libraries that follow semver (verify the library actually follows semver — most do, some don't). A major-version bump requires reading the breaking-change list and assessing each one.
- Dedup check: after upgrading, run
npm ls <pkg> (or the equivalent for the project's package manager) to confirm a single resolved version. Multi-version coexistence (e.g. an old 1.5.0 entity lingering alongside a new 1.5.2) causes type incompatibilities and mysterious failures that are hard to trace back to the upgrade.
Result table
| Conclusion | Action |
|---|
| ✅ Upstream already fixed, upgrade is low-risk | Upgrade the dependency as the preferred solution. Enter solution-exploration with the upgrade as the recommended option. |
| ⚠️ Upgrade carries risk (major / breaking) | Present upgrade and workaround side-by-side in solution-exploration; let risk tradeoff decide. |
| ❌ Upstream not fixed, or upgrade infeasible (version-locked / breaking) | Fall back to a workaround — but annotate it as temporary, with its trigger condition and the upstream issue it tracks. |
Relationship to other skills
| Skill | Relationship |
|---|
| PDCA hosts | Referenced by PDCA hosts at technical-analysis (optimistic counterpart to the "industry-wide no-viable-solution" branch). When invoked through a host, start from the 4-step decision order using the host's already-established root cause. Hosts are SoT for that edge. |
effective-web-research | Step 2 (checking the Changelog) benefits from this skill's research discipline — official sources first (the library's own changelog site), check recency, cross-validate non-trivial claims. |
runtime-evidence-debug | If root-cause confidence is still fuzzy after checking the Changelog, this skill's escape hatch (web research for known platform/framework issues) overlaps with step 2 here. This skill is the fix-strategy decision; runtime-evidence-debug is the evidence-gathering methodology. |
Domain-specific knowledge boundary
This skill carries general methodology only. Library-specific knowledge — e.g. which versions of a particular editor framework fixed which composition bugs, or a UI library's version-specific rendering quirks — belongs in each project's own docs (its AGENTS.md or fix logs), not in this skill. The reason: library-specific changelog keywords and version numbers go stale and are only relevant to projects using that library; polluting a general skill with them creates maintenance burden and topic drift.
When applying this skill, if the project's docs contain library-specific changelog keywords for the dependency in question, consult them for the search terms — this skill tells you to check the changelog; the project docs tell you what to search for.
Standalone invocation
When invoked directly (not through a workflow), start from When to use — confirm the signals apply, then walk the 4-step decision order. The output is the result-table conclusion plus the upgrade engineering discipline checklist if upgrade is chosen.
