Httpx Debug

Debug the error or issue the user described. Do NOT jump to a fix. Follow these phases in order.

Phase 1: Reproduce and Understand

1. Read CLAUDE.md for project structure, test commands, and known pitfalls.
2. Read any .claude/rules/*.md whose paths: glob matches the file(s) where the bug surfaces. Path-scoped rules often encode the conventions a fix needs to respect.
3. Understand the failure. What exactly is going wrong? Read the error message, stack trace, or described behavior carefully. Identify:
   • What is the expected behavior?
   • What is the actual behavior?
   • When did it start? Run git log --oneline -10 to check for recent changes that could be the cause.
4. Reproduce it. If there's a test command or way to trigger the bug, run it now. If you can't reproduce it, say so before proceeding — a fix you can't verify is a guess.

Phase 2: Diagnose

Do NOT write any fix yet. Investigate read-only until you understand the root cause.

1. Find the code path. Starting from the error location or the described behavior, trace the execution. The three operations below are independent — issue them as a single batch of parallel tool calls, not sequentially:
   • Grep for the error message, function name, or component.
   • Read the file where the failure occurs — the full file, not just the function.
   • Trace backwards: what calls this code? What data does it receive?
2. Find the actual data source. If the bug involves wrong values, read the query or data access that produces them. Do not assume — read the actual code.
3. Form 3–5 competing hypotheses for the root cause and rank them by likelihood. Do not anchor on the first plausible explanation — the obvious one is often itself a symptom. For each hypothesis, note what evidence would confirm it and what would kill it.
4. Gather runtime evidence — don't conclude from static reading alone. Where practical, add temporary logging, inspect the actual runtime values / server logs, or step through the repro, and see which hypothesis the real data supports. Reading code suggests a cause; runtime behavior confirms it. (Skipping this is the classic failure mode: rewriting logic to fix a guessed cause without ever checking the actual data.)
5. Identify the root cause. Ask yourself:
   • Is this a logic error, a data error, or a state error?
   • Is this a regression from a recent change? Check git diff and git log.
   • Could this be caused by something upstream of where the error appears?

State your diagnosis before proceeding. Explain:

• Where the bug is (file and function — file.py:123).
• Why it happens (the root cause, not the symptom).
• What the fix should be.

Diagnosis gate. Do NOT proceed to Phase 3 (or write any code) until you can defend the diagnosis. If you are not confident, say so and either run more diagnostics (more grep, more file reads) or ask the user for clarification. A fix written on top of a wrong diagnosis just creates a second bug.

Phase 3: Write a Failing Test

Before writing the fix, write a test that captures the bug:

1. Find existing tests for the module — match their patterns, fixtures, and style.
2. Write a test that reproduces the buggy behavior. It should fail right now for the same reason the bug occurs.
3. Run it to confirm it fails for the right reason. If it passes, your test doesn't capture the bug — fix the test first.

When a test isn't practical (pure environment/config issues, deployment-only bugs, side-effects of external services that are hard to mock): skip the test, but state explicitly why it isn't testable and how you'll verify the fix without one — typically by manually triggering the original repro from Phase 1 after the fix lands. A bug fix without verification is just hope.

Phase 4: Fix

Now implement the fix.

1. Fix the root cause, not the symptom. If the real problem is upstream, fix it upstream — don't add a bandaid where the error surfaces.
2. Make the minimal change. Don't refactor, rename, or "clean up" surrounding code. The fix should be as small and targeted as possible.
3. Check for other callers. If you changed a function's behavior, grep for other callers and verify they still work correctly.
4. Re-read the file after editing to verify the fix looks correct in context.

Phase 5: Verify

1. Run your failing test — it should pass now. If it doesn't, your fix is wrong. Go back to Phase 2.
2. Falsify: prove the test actually catches the bug. Temporarily revert the fix (git stash or comment it out) and confirm the test now fails, then restore the fix and confirm it passes again. A test that passes both with and without your change proves nothing — it isn't exercising the bug. (This is the red→green check: red without the fix, green with it.)
3. Run the full test suite. If other tests break, your fix caused a regression. Do not patch the other tests to make them pass — re-examine your fix.
4. Run linters/formatters if available.
5. Check your diff. Run git diff and verify every changed line is necessary for the fix. Remove anything unrelated.

Rules

• Do NOT apply a fix before you can explain the root cause.
• Do NOT change unrelated code.
• Do NOT use defensive hacks like || 0, try/catch wrappers, or null coalescing to mask the real problem.
• If the fix touches a hot path, consider performance implications.
• If you find the bug is a duplicate of a known pitfall from CLAUDE.md, mention it.

When NOT to use

• The user already knows the root cause and just wants the fix written — use the implement skill instead.
• The user wants to add a feature or change behavior — that's not a debug; use plan or implement.
• The "bug" is a flaky test or environment issue, not a code bug — diagnose the environment first; don't dig into code that isn't broken.