Back to skills
SKILL.md
Debug Conductor
ASecurityPREVIEW - Conductor-led bounded investigation for complex distributed system incidents. Serial or parallel branches. Produces incident packets. Persistence tooling not yet implemented.
- 8 stars
- 0 votes
- 0 copies
- 0 views
- Added October 6, 2026
Works with
Security analysis
100/100Pro scans all 2 files and shows the line behind each finding
npx -y skills add bordenet/superpowers-plus --skill debug-conductor --agent claude-codeAre you the author of Debug Conductor?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/bordenet-debug-conductor)---
name: debug-conductor
disable-model-invocation: true
source: superpowers-plus
description: "PREVIEW - Conductor-led bounded investigation for complex distributed system incidents. Serial or parallel branches. Produces incident packets. Persistence tooling not yet implemented."
summary: "Use when: debugging complex distributed system incidents with multiple possible causes."
triggers:
- "investigate distributed"
- "debug across services"
- "incident investigation"
- "forked debugging"
- "parallel investigation"
anti_triggers:
- "simple bug"
- "single file fix"
- "write tests"
coordination:
group: engineering
order: 2
requires: ["systematic-debugging"]
enables: ["investigation-state", "failure-autopsy"]
escalates_to: ["thinking-orchestrator"]
internal: false
composition:
produces: [incident-packet, root-cause-verdict, investigation-evidence]
consumes: [incident-description, system-context, investigation-state]
capabilities: [orchestrates-investigation, parallel-hypothesis-testing]
priority: 3
optional: false
requires_all: false
---
# Debug Conductor
> **Research basis:** Kim et al. (2025) — centralized orchestration contains errors to 4.4× vs 17.2× for independent agents. Optimal team: 3–4 investigators. Fork only when single-agent is insufficient.
## When to Use
- Complex incident crossing service boundaries
- Debugging stalled after `systematic-debugging` + `think-twice`
- Multiple plausible hypothesis domains (telephony, LLM, state, infra)
- Production impact requiring faster resolution than serial investigation
## When NOT to Use
- Single service, clear error message → use `systematic-debugging`
- First investigation attempt (always start serial)
- Budget exhausted (>80% consumed — see `fork-readiness-rubric.md`)
## Example Invocation
```
Investigate: payment failures across checkout and fulfillment services since 2pm UTC
Evidence: error logs, DB records for 3 failed transactions, user reports
Hypothesis domains: API gateway routing, payment provider responses, state persistence
```
## The Conductor Protocol
### Phase 1: Incident Triage
1. **Receive incident description** from user or escalation from `systematic-debugging`
2. **Extract structured context:**
- Affected systems and services
- Timeline (when detected, any mitigation in place)
- Available evidence (logs, traces, metrics, user reports)
- Recent changes (deployments, config, code)
3. **Classify hypothesis domains:**
- Timeline / trace gaps
- Telephony call flow
- LLM / prompt behavior
- State consistency
- Infrastructure / config / deployment
4. **Initialize incident packet in working context** (schema: `skills/_shared/incident-packet-schema.md`; protocol-only — no persistent store)
### Phase 2: Fork Decision
Apply the **Fork-Readiness Rubric** (see `skills/_shared/fork-readiness-rubric.md`).
| Score | Decision |
|-------|----------|
| < 6 | **SERIAL** — continue with `systematic-debugging` |
| ≥ 6, anti-fork signal present | **SERIAL** — log why fork was blocked |
| ≥ 6, no anti-fork signals | **FORK** — proceed to Phase 3 |
**Record the rubric score and rationale in the incident packet.**
**Operator checkpoint:** Before forking, present the rubric score, proposed investigator mix, and estimated budget to the user.
| Response | Action |
|----------|--------|
| **Approve** (yes, go, LGTM) | Proceed to Phase 3 |
| **Redirect** (change investigators, adjust hypotheses) | Apply user's adjustments, re-present for approval |
| **Reject** (no, don't fork, stay serial) | Fall back to serial `systematic-debugging` |
| **Conditional** ("yes but limit to 2 branches") | Apply constraints, proceed |
| **Explain more** ("why these investigators?") | Provide rationale, re-present; do NOT auto-proceed |
| **Off-topic / unclear** | Clarify once: "Should I proceed with forked investigation?" If still unclear → single-agent fallback |
| **Echo** (repeats the plan back) | Treat as approval |
| **No response / silence** | Stay serial (`systematic-debugging`); log that fork was available but not approved |
### Phase 3: Investigator Assignment (Fork Path)
1. **Select investigators** based on classified domains (max 4):
- Timeline & Trace Investigator — always included if trace data available
- Domain-specific investigator(s) — telephony, LLM, state, infra
- Reproduction & Experiment — only if hypothesis is testable
2. **Scope each mandate:**
- Specific hypothesis to investigate
- Allowed tools (constrained to domain)
- Token budget (25% of remaining per branch)
- Wall-clock limit (5 minutes per branch)
- **Required output:** both supporting AND disconfirming evidence
3. **Dispatch investigators as parallel sub-agents**
- Each investigator gets: incident context + scoped mandate + evidence schema
- Investigators do NOT communicate with each other (centralized only)
### Phase 4: Evidence Collection & Validation
As investigators return evidence:
1. **Validate** — is the evidence properly structured? Does it include confidence?
2. **Detect duplicates** — Jaccard similarity > 0.7 between branch evidence → merge
3. **Monitor budgets** — kill branches exceeding limits
4. **Check confidence** — kill branches with < 0.3 confidence after first evidence
5. **Update incident packet in working context** (in-memory only; not persisted across sessions)
### Phase 5: Adjudication
When all investigators complete (or budget exhausted), **dispatch `evidence-adjudicator`**:
1. Pass all branch evidence packets to `evidence-adjudicator`
2. Adjudicator builds reasoning tree, weighs evidence strength, detects contradictions
3. Adjudicator produces `RootCauseVerdict` with confidence score and alternative causes
4. Conductor receives verdict and proceeds to Phase 6
> **Ownership:** The conductor orchestrates; `evidence-adjudicator` synthesizes. The conductor MUST NOT perform adjudication itself.
### Phase 6: Resolution
1. **Record adjudicator verdict** in `incidentPacket.adjudication` (in working context)
2. **Record final budget usage** in `incidentPacket.budget`
3. **If confidence ≥ 0.8:** Present root cause + recommended next steps
4. **If confidence 0.5–0.8:** Present ranked hypotheses, recommend targeted experiments
5. **If confidence < 0.5:** Escalate to user with what we know and what we don't
6. **Record resolution actions** in `incidentPacket.nextSteps`
7. **Always:** Invoke `failure-autopsy` for post-resolution learning
8. **Always:** Update `investigation-state` with final verdict
9. **Always:** Log to TODO ledger any deferred follow-ups
## Bounded Forking Constraints
| Constraint | Value | Action at Limit |
|-----------|-------|----------------|
| Max concurrent investigators | 4 | Queue additional; explain to user |
| Max total branches | 6 | Stop branching; dispatch `evidence-adjudicator` with current branches |
| Per-branch token budget | 25% of total | Kill branch |
| Per-branch wall-clock | 5 minutes | Kill branch |
| Min confidence to continue | 0.3 | Kill branch |
| Duplicate threshold | Jaccard > 0.7 | Merge branches |
## Failure Modes
| Failure | Detection | Recovery |
|---------|-----------|----------|
| All investigators find nothing | All branches < 0.3 confidence | Escalate to user; suggest new evidence sources |
| Investigators agree on wrong cause | High confidence but contradicted by reproduction | Require reproduction before accepting verdict |
| Cost explosion | Budget > 80% with no verdict | Stop forking; dispatch `evidence-adjudicator` with partial findings |
| Conductor bottleneck | Queued evidence > 3 items unprocessed | Process evidence in batch; simplify validation |
| Circular investigation | Same hypothesis re-investigated | Track hypothesis IDs; reject duplicates |
| Adjudicator failure | `evidence-adjudicator` times out or returns malformed verdict | Retry once; if still failed, escalate with partial ranked evidence and mark adjudication as degraded |
## Companion Skills
- **systematic-debugging** — serial investigation (always try first)
- **investigation-state** — evidence persistence across sessions
- **think-twice** — escalation signal (fork trigger)
- **adversarial-search** — embedded in adjudicator Step 5b (disconfirmation pass)
- **failure-autopsy** — post-resolution learning
- **thinking-orchestrator** — hub router (routes here when fork-ready)
Files in this skill
- references/incident-packet-schema.md
- skill.md
Attribution
Comments
Loading comments…