// Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes
Generate a CodeWiki project requirements report in Markdown format from an existing codebase. Same report scope as the HTML CodeWiki—presented as `.md` for plain-text reading, Git diffs, and Markdown previewers.
Generate a CodeWiki project requirements report in interactive HTML format from an existing codebase. Same report scope as the Markdown CodeWiki—browser-openable with search, filters, collapsible API cards, and inline SVG/CSS diagrams.
Use when starting any conversation - establishes how to find and use Codemini skills before acting
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements
| name | systematic-debugging |
| description | Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes |
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.
NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST
If you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.
Use for ANY technical issue:
Use this ESPECIALLY when:
Don't skip when:
You MUST complete each phase before proceeding to the next.
BEFORE attempting ANY fix:
Read Error Messages Carefully
Reproduce Consistently
Check Recent Changes
Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems
WHEN system has multiple components (CI → build → signing, API → service → database):
BEFORE proposing fixes, add diagnostic instrumentation:
For EACH component boundary:
- Log what data enters component
- Log what data exits component
- Verify environment/config propagation
- Check state at each layer
Run once to gather evidence showing WHERE it breaks
THEN analyze evidence to identify failing component
THEN investigate that specific component
Example (multi-layer system):
# Layer 1: Workflow
echo "=== Secrets available in workflow: ==="
echo "IDENTITY: ${IDENTITY:+SET}${IDENTITY:-UNSET}"
# Layer 2: Build script
echo "=== Env vars in build script: ==="
env | grep IDENTITY || echo "IDENTITY not in environment"
# Layer 3: Signing script
echo "=== Keychain state: ==="
security list-keychains
security find-identity -v
# Layer 4: Actual signing
codesign --sign "$IDENTITY" --verbose=4 "$APP"
This reveals: Which layer fails (secrets → workflow ✓, workflow → build ✗)
Trace Data Flow
WHEN error is deep in call stack:
See root-cause-tracing.md in this directory for the complete backward tracing technique.
Quick version:
Find the pattern before fixing:
Find Working Examples
Compare Against References
Identify Differences
Understand Dependencies
Scientific method:
Form Single Hypothesis
Test Minimally
Verify Before Continuing
When You Don't Know
Fix the root cause, not the symptom:
Create Failing Test Case
test-driven-development skill for writing proper failing testsImplement Single Fix
Verify Fix
If Fix Doesn't Work
If 3+ Fixes Failed: Question Architecture
Pattern indicating architectural problem:
STOP and question fundamentals:
Discuss with your human partner before attempting more fixes
This is NOT a failed hypothesis - this is a wrong architecture.
If you catch yourself thinking:
ALL of these mean: STOP. Return to Phase 1.
If 3+ fixes failed: Question the architecture (see Phase 4.5)
Watch for these redirections:
When you see these: STOP. Return to Phase 1.
| 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. |
| Phase | Key Activities | Success Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Root Cause | Read errors, reproduce, check changes, gather evidence | Understand WHAT and WHY |
| 2. Pattern | Find working examples, compare | Identify differences |
| 3. Hypothesis | Form theory, test minimally | Confirmed or new hypothesis |
| 4. Implementation | Create test, fix, verify | Bug resolved, tests pass |
If systematic investigation reveals issue is truly environmental, timing-dependent, or external:
But: 95% of "no root cause" cases are incomplete investigation.
These techniques are part of systematic debugging and available in this directory:
root-cause-tracing.md - Trace bugs backward through call stack to find original triggerdefense-in-depth.md - Add validation at multiple layers after finding root causecondition-based-waiting.md - Replace arbitrary timeouts with condition pollingRelated skills:
From debugging sessions: