Systematic Debugging
Overview
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.
Project note: For production issue triage specific to this codebase, also see docs/troubleshooting/common-issues.md.
The Iron Law
NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST
If you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.
When to Use
Use for ANY technical issue:
- Test failures
- Bugs in production
- Unexpected behavior
- Performance problems
- Build failures
- Integration issues
Use this ESPECIALLY when:
- Under time pressure (emergencies make guessing tempting)
- "Just one quick fix" seems obvious
- You've already tried multiple fixes
- Previous fix didn't work
- You don't fully understand the issue
Don't skip when:
- Issue seems simple (simple bugs have root causes too)
- You're in a hurry (rushing guarantees rework)
- Manager wants it fixed NOW (systematic is faster than thrashing)
The Four Phases
You MUST complete each phase before proceeding to the next.
Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation
BEFORE attempting ANY fix:
Read Error Messages Carefully
- Don't skip past errors or warnings
- They often contain the exact solution
- Read stack traces completely
- Note line numbers, file paths, error codes
Reproduce Consistently
- Can you trigger it reliably?
- What are the exact steps?
- Does it happen every time?
- If not reproducible → gather more data, don't guess
Check Recent Changes
- What changed that could cause this?
- Git diff, recent commits
- New dependencies, config changes
- Environmental differences
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
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:
- Where does bad value originate?
- What called this with bad value?
- Keep tracing up until you find the source
- Fix at source, not at symptom
Phase 2: Pattern Analysis
Find the pattern before fixing:
Find Working Examples
- Locate similar working code in same codebase
- What works that's similar to what's broken?
Compare Against References
- If implementing pattern, read reference implementation COMPLETELY
- Don't skim - read every line
- Understand the pattern fully before applying
Identify Differences
- What's different between working and broken?
- List every difference, however small
- Don't assume "that can't matter"
Understand Dependencies
- What other components does this need?
- What settings, config, environment?
- What assumptions does it make?
Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing
Scientific method:
Form Single Hypothesis
- State clearly: "I think X is the root cause because Y"
- Write it down
- Be specific, not vague
Test Minimally
- Make the SMALLEST possible change to test hypothesis
- One variable at a time
- Don't fix multiple things at once
Verify Before Continuing
- Did it work? Yes → Phase 4
- Didn't work? Form NEW hypothesis
- DON'T add more fixes on top
When You Don't Know
- Say "I don't understand X"
- Don't pretend to know
- Ask for help
- Research more
Phase 4: Implementation
Fix the root cause, not the symptom:
Create Failing Test Case
- Simplest possible reproduction
- Automated test if possible
- One-off test script if no framework
- MUST have before fixing
- Use the
test-driven-development skill for writing proper failing tests
Implement Single Fix
- Address the root cause identified
- ONE change at a time
- No "while I'm here" improvements
- No bundled refactoring
Verify Fix
- Test passes now?
- No other tests broken?
- Issue actually resolved?
If Fix Doesn't Work
- STOP
- Count: How many fixes have you tried?
- If < 3: Return to Phase 1, re-analyze with new information
- If >= 3: STOP and question the architecture (step 5 below)
- DON'T attempt Fix #4 without architectural discussion
If 3+ Fixes Failed: Question Architecture
Pattern indicating architectural problem:
- Each fix reveals new shared state/coupling/problem in different place
- Fixes require "massive refactoring" to implement
- Each fix creates new symptoms elsewhere
STOP and question fundamentals:
- Is this pattern fundamentally sound?
- Are we "sticking with it through sheer inertia"?
- Should we refactor architecture vs. continue fixing symptoms?
Discuss with your human partner before attempting more fixes
Red Flags - STOP and Follow Process
If you catch yourself thinking:
- "Quick fix for now, investigate later"
- "Just try changing X and see if it works"
- "Add multiple changes, run tests"
- "Skip the test, I'll manually verify"
- "It's probably X, let me fix that"
- "I don't fully understand but this might work"
- "Pattern says X but I'll adapt it differently"
- "Here are the main problems: [lists fixes without investigation]"
- Proposing solutions before tracing data flow
- "One more fix attempt" (when already tried 2+)
- Each fix reveals new problem in different place
ALL of these mean: STOP. Return to Phase 1.
If 3+ fixes failed: Question the architecture (see Phase 4.5)
Common Rationalizations
| 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. |
Quick Reference
| 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 |
Supporting Techniques
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 trigger
defense-in-depth.md - Add validation at multiple layers after finding root cause
condition-based-waiting.md - Replace arbitrary timeouts with condition polling
Related skills:
- test-driven-development - For creating failing test case (Phase 4, Step 1)
- verification-before-completion - Verify fix worked before claiming success
1---2name: systematic-debugging3description: Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes4---56# Systematic Debugging78## Overview910Random fixes waste time and create new bugs. Quick patches mask underlying issues.1112**Core principle:** ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes. Symptom fixes are failure.1314**Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of debugging.**1516> **Project note:** For production issue triage specific to this codebase, also see `docs/troubleshooting/common-issues.md`.1718## The Iron Law1920```21NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST22```2324If you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.2526## When to Use2728Use for ANY technical issue:29- Test failures30- Bugs in production31- Unexpected behavior32- Performance problems33- Build failures34- Integration issues3536**Use this ESPECIALLY when:**37- Under time pressure (emergencies make guessing tempting)38- "Just one quick fix" seems obvious39- You've already tried multiple fixes40- Previous fix didn't work41- You don't fully understand the issue4243**Don't skip when:**44- Issue seems simple (simple bugs have root causes too)45- You're in a hurry (rushing guarantees rework)46- Manager wants it fixed NOW (systematic is faster than thrashing)4748## The Four Phases4950You MUST complete each phase before proceeding to the next.5152### Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation5354**BEFORE attempting ANY fix:**55561. **Read Error Messages Carefully**57 - Don't skip past errors or warnings58 - They often contain the exact solution59 - Read stack traces completely60 - Note line numbers, file paths, error codes61622. **Reproduce Consistently**63 - Can you trigger it reliably?64 - What are the exact steps?65 - Does it happen every time?66 - If not reproducible → gather more data, don't guess67683. **Check Recent Changes**69 - What changed that could cause this?70 - Git diff, recent commits71 - New dependencies, config changes72 - Environmental differences73744. **Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems**7576 **WHEN system has multiple components (CI → build → signing, API → service → database):**7778 **BEFORE proposing fixes, add diagnostic instrumentation:**79 ```80 For EACH component boundary:81 - Log what data enters component82 - Log what data exits component83 - Verify environment/config propagation84 - Check state at each layer8586 Run once to gather evidence showing WHERE it breaks87 THEN analyze evidence to identify failing component88 THEN investigate that specific component89 ```90915. **Trace Data Flow**9293 **WHEN error is deep in call stack:**9495 See `root-cause-tracing.md` in this directory for the complete backward tracing technique.9697 **Quick version:**98 - Where does bad value originate?99 - What called this with bad value?100 - Keep tracing up until you find the source101 - Fix at source, not at symptom102103### Phase 2: Pattern Analysis104105**Find the pattern before fixing:**1061071. **Find Working Examples**108 - Locate similar working code in same codebase109 - What works that's similar to what's broken?1101112. **Compare Against References**112 - If implementing pattern, read reference implementation COMPLETELY113 - Don't skim - read every line114 - Understand the pattern fully before applying1151163. **Identify Differences**117 - What's different between working and broken?118 - List every difference, however small119 - Don't assume "that can't matter"1201214. **Understand Dependencies**122 - What other components does this need?123 - What settings, config, environment?124 - What assumptions does it make?125126### Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing127128**Scientific method:**1291301. **Form Single Hypothesis**131 - State clearly: "I think X is the root cause because Y"132 - Write it down133 - Be specific, not vague1341352. **Test Minimally**136 - Make the SMALLEST possible change to test hypothesis137 - One variable at a time138 - Don't fix multiple things at once1391403. **Verify Before Continuing**141 - Did it work? Yes → Phase 4142 - Didn't work? Form NEW hypothesis143 - DON'T add more fixes on top1441454. **When You Don't Know**146 - Say "I don't understand X"147 - Don't pretend to know148 - Ask for help149 - Research more150151### Phase 4: Implementation152153**Fix the root cause, not the symptom:**1541551. **Create Failing Test Case**156 - Simplest possible reproduction157 - Automated test if possible158 - One-off test script if no framework159 - MUST have before fixing160 - Use the `test-driven-development` skill for writing proper failing tests1611622. **Implement Single Fix**163 - Address the root cause identified164 - ONE change at a time165 - No "while I'm here" improvements166 - No bundled refactoring1671683. **Verify Fix**169 - Test passes now?170 - No other tests broken?171 - Issue actually resolved?1721734. **If Fix Doesn't Work**174 - STOP175 - Count: How many fixes have you tried?176 - If < 3: Return to Phase 1, re-analyze with new information177 - **If >= 3: STOP and question the architecture (step 5 below)**178 - DON'T attempt Fix #4 without architectural discussion1791805. **If 3+ Fixes Failed: Question Architecture**181182 **Pattern indicating architectural problem:**183 - Each fix reveals new shared state/coupling/problem in different place184 - Fixes require "massive refactoring" to implement185 - Each fix creates new symptoms elsewhere186187 **STOP and question fundamentals:**188 - Is this pattern fundamentally sound?189 - Are we "sticking with it through sheer inertia"?190 - Should we refactor architecture vs. continue fixing symptoms?191192 **Discuss with your human partner before attempting more fixes**193194## Red Flags - STOP and Follow Process195196If you catch yourself thinking:197- "Quick fix for now, investigate later"198- "Just try changing X and see if it works"199- "Add multiple changes, run tests"200- "Skip the test, I'll manually verify"201- "It's probably X, let me fix that"202- "I don't fully understand but this might work"203- "Pattern says X but I'll adapt it differently"204- "Here are the main problems: [lists fixes without investigation]"205- Proposing solutions before tracing data flow206- **"One more fix attempt" (when already tried 2+)**207- **Each fix reveals new problem in different place**208209**ALL of these mean: STOP. Return to Phase 1.**210211**If 3+ fixes failed:** Question the architecture (see Phase 4.5)212213## Common Rationalizations214215| Excuse | Reality |216|--------|---------|217| "Issue is simple, don't need process" | Simple issues have root causes too. Process is fast for simple bugs. |218| "Emergency, no time for process" | Systematic debugging is FASTER than guess-and-check thrashing. |219| "Just try this first, then investigate" | First fix sets the pattern. Do it right from the start. |220| "I'll write test after confirming fix works" | Untested fixes don't stick. Test first proves it. |221| "Multiple fixes at once saves time" | Can't isolate what worked. Causes new bugs. |222| "Reference too long, I'll adapt the pattern" | Partial understanding guarantees bugs. Read it completely. |223| "I see the problem, let me fix it" | Seeing symptoms != understanding root cause. |224| "One more fix attempt" (after 2+ failures) | 3+ failures = architectural problem. Question pattern, don't fix again. |225226## Quick Reference227228| Phase | Key Activities | Success Criteria |229|-------|---------------|------------------|230| **1. Root Cause** | Read errors, reproduce, check changes, gather evidence | Understand WHAT and WHY |231| **2. Pattern** | Find working examples, compare | Identify differences |232| **3. Hypothesis** | Form theory, test minimally | Confirmed or new hypothesis |233| **4. Implementation** | Create test, fix, verify | Bug resolved, tests pass |234235## Supporting Techniques236237These techniques are part of systematic debugging and available in this directory:238239- **`root-cause-tracing.md`** - Trace bugs backward through call stack to find original trigger240- **`defense-in-depth.md`** - Add validation at multiple layers after finding root cause241- **`condition-based-waiting.md`** - Replace arbitrary timeouts with condition polling242243**Related skills:**244- **test-driven-development** - For creating failing test case (Phase 4, Step 1)245- **verification-before-completion** - Verify fix worked before claiming success