Debug

---
name: debug
description: Root cause debugging before fixes. Use when investigating bugs,
  diagnosing test failures, troubleshooting unexpected behavior, or when previous
  fix attempts failed. Enforces investigate-first discipline.
allowed-tools: "*"
---

# Systematic Debugger

Find root cause before fixing. Symptom fixes are failure.

**Iron Law:** NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST

## When to Use

Answer IN ORDER. Stop at first match:

1. Bug, error, or test failure? → Use this skill
2. Unexpected behavior? → Use this skill
3. Previous fix didn't work? → Use this skill (especially important)
4. Performance problem? → Use this skill
5. None of above? → Skip this skill

**Use especially when:**

- Under time pressure (emergencies make guessing tempting)
- "Quick fix" seems obvious (red flag)
- Already tried 1+ fixes that didn't work

## The Four Phases

Complete each phase before proceeding.

### Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation

**BEFORE attempting ANY fix:**

#### 1. Read Error Messages Completely

```text
Don't skip past errors. They often contain the exact solution.
- Full stack trace (note line numbers, file paths)
- Error codes and messages
- Warnings that preceded the error
```

**When the error mentions a library/framework symbol** (a function, class, or module from a dependency) — read the installed version's docs before forming a hypothesis. Signatures, defaults, and deprecation behavior change between versions; training memory may describe a different version than the one running. Check `package.json` / lockfile, then the source wired up (Context7, official docs, README at the pinned ref).

#### 2. Reproduce Consistently

| Can reproduce?  | Action                                               |
| --------------- | ---------------------------------------------------- |
| Yes, every time | Proceed to step 3                                    |
| Sometimes       | Gather more data - when does it happen vs not?       |
| Never           | Cannot debug what you cannot reproduce - gather logs |

**When repro hinges on user-only context** (env, timeline, "what were you doing"), call `/elicit` — its multiple-choice format constrains the answer space better than open prompts.

#### 3. Check Recent Changes

```bash
git diff HEAD~5       # Recent code changes
git log --oneline -10 # Recent commits
```

What changed that could cause this? Dependencies? Config? Environment?

#### 4. Trace Data Flow (Root Cause Tracing)

When error is deep in call stack:

```text
Symptom: Error at line 50 in utils.js
    ↑ Called by handler.js:120
    ↑ Called by router.js:45
    ↑ Called by app.js:10 ← ROOT CAUSE: bad input here
```

**Technique:**

1. Find where error occurs (symptom)
2. Ask: "What called this with bad data?"
3. Trace up until you find the SOURCE
4. Fix at source, not at symptom

#### 5. Multi-Component Systems

When system has multiple layers (API → service → database):

```bash
# Log at EACH boundary before proposing fixes
echo "=== Layer 1 (API): request=$REQUEST ==="
echo "=== Layer 2 (Service): input=$INPUT ==="
echo "=== Layer 3 (DB): query=$QUERY ==="
```

Run once to find WHERE it breaks. Then investigate that layer.

### Phase 2: Pattern Analysis

#### 1. Find Working Examples

Locate similar working code in same codebase. What works that's similar?

#### 2. Identify Differences

| Working code     | Broken code    | Could this matter? |
| ---------------- | -------------- | ------------------ |
| Uses async/await | Uses callbacks | Yes - timing       |
| Validates input  | No validation  | Yes - bad data     |

List ALL differences. Don't assume "that can't matter."

### Phase 3: Hypothesis Testing

#### 1. Form Single Hypothesis

Write it down: "I think X is the root cause because Y"

Be specific:

- ❌ "Something's wrong with the database"
- ✅ "Connection pool exhausted because connections aren't released in error path"

#### 2. Test Minimally

| Rule                     | Why                    |
| ------------------------ | ---------------------- |
| ONE change at a time     | Isolate what works     |
| Smallest possible change | Avoid side effects     |
| Don't bundle fixes       | Can't tell what helped |

#### 3. Evaluate Result

| Result          | Action                                  |
| --------------- | --------------------------------------- |
| Fixed           | Phase 4 (verify)                        |
| Not fixed       | NEW hypothesis (return to 3.1)          |
| Partially fixed | Found one issue, continue investigating |

### Root Cause Checkpoint (REQUIRED)

Before proceeding to Phase 4:

1. **Document root cause** in ticket (under "## Root Cause" section):
   - What is the actual cause (not symptom)?
   - Why did this happen?
   - How was it confirmed?
2. **If using tickets:** Update frontmatter to `subtype: bug-investigated`

**Example:**

```markdown
## Root Cause

Connection pool exhausted because connections aren't released in error path.
Confirmed by adding pool logging - saw connections increment without decrement on errors.
```

### Phase 4: Implementation

#### 1. Create Failing Test

Before fixing, write test that fails due to the bug:

```javascript
it("handles empty input without crashing", () => {
  // This test should FAIL before fix, PASS after
  expect(() => processData("")).not.toThrow();
});
```

#### 2. Implement Fix

- Address ROOT CAUSE identified in Phase 1
- ONE change
- No "while I'm here" improvements

#### 3. Verify

- [ ] New test passes
- [ ] Existing tests still pass
- [ ] Issue actually resolved (not just test passing)

End the fix report with **Next:** on its own line — imperative, name what's now (commit message to use, ticket to mark done, follow-up issue to open for related debt the investigation surfaced). A debug session that ends without naming the next move is incomplete.

Examples:

- **Next:** commit with `fix(auth): release pool connection in error path`, mark ticket 234 done.
- **Next:** commit the fix, then open a ticket for the unrelated logging gap surfaced at `src/auth.ts:88`.

#### 4. If Fix Doesn't Work

| Fix attempts | Action                                   |
| ------------ | ---------------------------------------- |
| 1-2          | Return to Phase 1 with new information   |
| 3+           | STOP - Question architecture (see below) |

#### 5. After 3+ Failed Fixes: Question Architecture

Pattern indicating architectural problem:

- Each fix reveals new coupling/shared state
- Fixes require "massive refactoring"
- Each fix creates new symptoms elsewhere

**STOP and ask:**

- Is this pattern fundamentally sound?
- Should we refactor vs. continue patching?
- Discuss with user before more fix attempts

## Red Flags - STOP Immediately

If you catch yourself thinking:

| Thought                                        | Reality                           |
| ---------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------- |
| "Quick fix for now, investigate later"         | Investigate NOW or you never will |
| "Just try changing X"                          | That's guessing, not debugging    |
| "I'll add multiple fixes and test"             | Can't isolate what worked         |
| "I don't fully understand but this might work" | You need to understand first      |
| "One more fix attempt" (after 2+ failures)     | 3+ failures = wrong approach      |

**ALL mean: STOP. Return to Phase 1.**

## Quick Reference

| Phase             | Key Question                          | Success Criteria                   |
| ----------------- | ------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------- |
| 1. Root Cause     | "WHY is this happening?"              | Understand cause, not just symptom |
| 2. Pattern        | "What's different from working code?" | Identified key differences         |
| 3. Hypothesis     | "Is my theory correct?"               | Confirmed or formed new theory     |
| 4. Implementation | "Does the fix work?"                  | Test passes, issue resolved        |

**Voice:** plainspoken and concise — write to be scanned.