/systematic-debugging

name: systematic-debugging
description: Four-phase debugging framework for any technical issue. Use when encountering bugs, errors, or unexpected behavior. Prevents random fix attempts.

Systematic Debugging

> From [obra/superpowers](https://github.com/obra/superpowers)

Core Principle

**NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST**

Random fixes create new bugs. Understanding must precede solutions.

The Four Phases

Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation

Before ANY fix attempt:

1. **Read error messages carefully**

• Full stack traces
• Error codes and descriptions
• Timestamps and context

2. **Reproduce consistently**

• Document exact steps
• Identify triggers
• Note environmental factors

3. **Check recent changes**

• Recent commits
• Dependency updates
• Configuration changes

4. **Gather diagnostic evidence**

• Add logging at component boundaries
• Check input/output at each step
• Trace data flow backward to source

Phase 2: Pattern Analysis

1. **Find similar working code**

• Search codebase for related functionality
• Look for existing patterns

2. **Read reference implementations completely**

• Don't skim
• Understand the full context

3. **Compare working vs broken**

• What's different?
• What assumptions changed?

4. **Understand dependencies**

• What does this code rely on?
• What relies on this code?

Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing

1. **Form a SINGLE, SPECIFIC hypothesis**

• "The error occurs because X"
• Not "maybe it's A or B or C"

2. **Test with minimal changes**

• One variable at a time
• Don't combine fixes

3. **Accept results**

• If hypothesis is wrong, form new one
• Don't force-fit evidence

4. **Ask for help when stuck**

• After genuine investigation
• With evidence gathered

Phase 4: Implementation

1. **Create a failing test case FIRST**

• Reproduces the bug
• Will pass when fixed

2. **Implement SINGLE fix**

• Address root cause only
• Don't fix "nearby" issues

3. **Verify the fix**

• Test case passes
• No regressions
• Issue is resolved

The 3-Fix Rule

**If ≥3 fixes fail: STOP and question the architecture**

Three consecutive failed fixes signal:

• Architectural problem, not implementation bug
• Wrong mental model of the system
• Need to step back and reassess

Do NOT attempt more fixes. Reassess the approach.

Critical Red Flags

STOP and restart investigation if you:

• Propose fixes before understanding the problem
• Add multiple changes simultaneously
• Skip investigation for "quick fixes"
• Make 3+ failed fix attempts
• Say "let's just try this"

Debugging Checklist

## Investigation
- [ ] Read full error message/stack trace
- [ ] Reproduced issue consistently
- [ ] Checked recent changes
- [ ] Added diagnostic logging
- [ ] Traced data flow

## Analysis
- [ ] Found similar working code
- [ ] Compared working vs broken
- [ ] Understood all dependencies

## Hypothesis
- [ ] Formed single specific hypothesis
- [ ] Tested with minimal change
- [ ] Accepted results honestly

## Fix
- [ ] Created failing test case
- [ ] Implemented single fix
- [ ] Verified fix works
- [ ] No regressions

Example Workflow

Issue: User login fails silently

Phase 1 - Investigation:
- Error: "null reference at AuthService.validate()"
- Reproduced: happens with specific user emails
- Recent change: added email normalization

Phase 2 - Analysis:
- Working logins use lowercase emails
- Failing logins have mixed case
- Normalization strips @ symbol incorrectly

Phase 3 - Hypothesis:
- "Email normalization regex is wrong"
- Test: log email before/after normalization
- Result: "Test@Example.com" → "testexample.com"
- Confirmed!

Phase 4 - Fix:
- Write test: normalize("Test@Example.com") == "test@example.com"
- Fix regex to preserve @
- Verify: test passes, logins work