Skip to content
Back to skills

Debugging And Recovery

ASecurity

Use when something is broken, a test is failing, behavior is wrong, when investigating a production incident, when a user reports a bug, when a feature works locally but not in another environment, or when the system behaves differently than the contract specifies.

  • 3 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 1 view
  • Added May 28, 2026
developmentdebuggingcode-reviewgit

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned May 28, 2026

npx -y skills add aneja5/forge-skills --skill debugging-and-recovery --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Debugging And Recovery?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Debugging And Recovery
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/aneja5-debugging-and-recovery/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/aneja5-debugging-and-recovery)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: debugging-and-recovery
description: Use when something is broken, a test is failing, behavior is wrong, when investigating a production incident, when a user reports a bug, when a feature works locally but not in another environment, or when the system behaves differently than the contract specifies.
---

# Debugging and Recovery

## Overview

Reproduce → localize → fix → guard. Never guess at root cause. The fix is not done until a regression test guards it. For bugs with GitHub issues, see `triage-issue` for the full investigation + issue creation flow.

## When to Use

- Something broke or behaves unexpectedly
- A test is failing and the cause is not obvious
- A bug has been reported and needs diagnosis before a fix
- An error is ambiguous — multiple possible causes

## When NOT to Use

- The fix is obvious and well-understood — just implement with `tdd`
- The bug is a missing feature, not broken behavior — use `spec-driven-development`
- You want to preemptively prevent bugs — use `code-review-and-quality`

## Common Rationalizations

| Thought | Reality |
|---------|---------|
| "I know what the bug is" | You think you do. Reproduce it first. |
| "I'll just try this fix and see" | Untested fixes introduce new bugs |
| "The root cause is obvious from the stack trace" | Stack traces show symptoms, not causes |
| "A unit test would be too hard to write for this" | Write an integration test — the behavior is observable |
| "The fix is one line, no test needed" | One-line bugs are re-introduced in one line |

## Red Flags

- Fixing before reproducing — you might be fixing the wrong thing
- Fix that passes all tests but doesn't change observable behavior
- No regression test added — the bug will return
- Root cause described as "it just wasn't working" — not a cause
- Fix modifies more than what the bug report describes

## Core Process

### Step 1: Reproduce

Get the minimal reproduction: exact steps, inputs, environment. If you can't reproduce it, you don't understand it. Run the failing scenario manually or via test before writing any fix.

### Step 2: Write a failing test

Before fixing:

```
RED: Write a test that reproduces the bug
     → The test must fail
     → If it passes, your reproduction is wrong
```

The test proves you understand the bug.

### Step 3: Localize

With a failing test, trace the code path:
- Where does the expected behavior diverge from actual?
- What invariant is being violated?
- What recently changed in this code path? (`git log -p <files>`)
- Is it the logic, the data, or the interface contract?

### Step 4: Fix — minimum change

Implement the smallest change that makes the failing test pass. Do not refactor adjacent code. Do not fix other bugs you notice. Do not add features.

### Step 5: Guard

Run the full test suite. Confirm:
- The specific regression test passes
- No previously passing tests now fail
- The fix doesn't silently break adjacent behavior

### Step 6: Document

If the bug was non-obvious: add a comment explaining WHY the fix is correct, not what it does. Consider whether the bug points to a missing contract invariant in `.forge/contracts/`.

## Verification

- [ ] Bug reproduced before any fix was written
- [ ] Failing test written that specifically captures the bug
- [ ] Root cause identified (not just symptom)
- [ ] Fix is the minimum change to make the test pass
- [ ] Regression test passes after fix
- [ ] Full test suite still passes
- [ ] If contract was violated: `.forge/contracts/` updated with the missing invariant

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…