# systematic-debugging > Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes - Author: Aezi - Repository: aezizhu/super-ralph - Version: 20260207160308 - Stars: 1 - Forks: 0 - Last Updated: 2026-02-07 - Source: https://github.com/aezizhu/super-ralph - Web: https://mule.run/skillshub/@@aezizhu/super-ralph~systematic-debugging:20260207160308 --- --- name: systematic-debugging description: Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes --- # 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.** ## 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 ## The Four Phases You MUST complete each phase before proceeding to the next. ### Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation **BEFORE attempting ANY fix:** 1. **Read Error Messages Carefully** - Don't skip past errors or warnings - Read stack traces completely - Note line numbers, file paths, error codes 2. **Reproduce Consistently** - Can you trigger it reliably? - What are the exact steps? - If not reproducible -> gather more data, don't guess 3. **Check Recent Changes** - What changed that could cause this? - Git diff, recent commits - New dependencies, config changes 4. **Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems** **WHEN system has multiple components:** **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 ``` 5. **Trace Data Flow** 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 1. **Find Working Examples** - Locate similar working code in same codebase 2. **Compare Against References** - Read reference implementation COMPLETELY 3. **Identify Differences** - List every difference, however small 4. **Understand Dependencies** - What other components does this need? ### Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing 1. **Form Single Hypothesis** - "I think X is the root cause because Y" 2. **Test Minimally** - SMALLEST possible change, one variable at a time 3. **Verify Before Continuing** - Didn't work? Form NEW hypothesis. DON'T add more fixes on top 4. **When You Don't Know** - Say "I don't understand X". Don't pretend to know. ### Phase 4: Implementation 1. **Create Failing Test Case** - MUST have before fixing. Use test-driven-development skill. 2. **Implement Single Fix** - ONE change at a time. No "while I'm here" improvements. 3. **Verify Fix** - Test passes? No other tests broken? Issue actually resolved? 4. **If Fix Doesn't Work** - If < 3 attempts: Return to Phase 1. **If >= 3: STOP and question the architecture.** 5. **If 3+ Fixes Failed: Question Architecture** - Is this pattern fundamentally sound? 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" - "Here are the main problems: [lists fixes without investigation]" - Proposing solutions before tracing data flow - **"One more fix attempt" (when already tried 2+)** **ALL of these mean: STOP. Return to Phase 1.** ## 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. | | "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 - **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