/debug

name: debug
description: "Interactive debugging workflow with hypothesis-driven probe loop. Use when: unknown bugs, script errors, silent failures, troubleshooting. Not for: known bugs (use bug-fix), GitHub issue analysis (use issue-analyze), code understanding (use code-explore). Output: debug report with probe journal + root cause + fix."
allowed-tools: Read, Grep, Glob, Edit, Write, Bash, Skill, AskUserQuestion

Debug Skill

Trigger

• Keywords: debug, 除錯, troubleshoot, diagnose, 查問題, 找 bug, 為什麼不動, 為什麼不 work, something wrong, not working

When NOT to Use

| Scenario | Alternative | |----------|------------| | GitHub Issue / PR thread 分析 | `/issue-analyze` | | 已知根因、直接修復 | `/bug-fix` | | 理解程式碼如何運作 | `/code-explore` | | 需要雙視角確認邏輯 | `/code-investigate` | | 部署後唯讀功能驗證 | `/feature-verify` |

Prohibited Actions

❌ git add | git commit | git push — per @rules/git-workflow.md

This skill debugs and may fix code but does **not** commit. `/precommit` is a quality gate only. To commit, offer the menu per `rules/git-workflow.md` § Proactive Offer — a commit option on any real branch, a push option only where `review-state.js offer` allows one — and invoke `/smart-commit --execute` on selection; never print the command for the user to copy.

Workflow

Phase 0    Phase 1     Phase 2          Phase 3           Phase 4        Phase 5
Intake  →  Classify →  Probe Loop   →   Root Cause    →   Fix +       →  Report
+ Repro    (Taxonomy)  (max 6)          Confirmation      Verify
  │          │           │                 │                │              │
  ▼          ▼           ▼                 ▼                ▼              ▼
Execute    refs/       Bash            /seek-verdict    Edit+test     --export
reproduce  failure-    /codex-         /code-investigate /bug-fix      (optional)
           taxonomy    brainstorm      (optional)

Phase 0: Intake + Reproduce

| Step | Action | Output | |------|--------|--------| | 0a | 解析問題描述（症狀、範圍、環境） | 結構化問題描述 | | 0b | 嘗試重現（執行命令/腳本） | 預期 vs 實際結果 | | 0c | 重現成功？ | Yes → Phase 1 / No → `⚠️ Need Human` |

**Repro Contract**: 根因聲稱必須基於可重現的觀察，不可基於靜態推測。

Phase 1: Classify

根據觀察到的失敗模式，使用 Failure Taxonomy 分類並選擇 first-probe 策略。

See `references/failure-taxonomy.md` for:

• 6 problem types + detection signals + first-probe commands
• Classification decision tree
• Escalation paths

Phase 2: Probe Loop

假設驅動的互動式探測迴圈。See `references/probe-protocol.md` for full rules.

每個 probe 是一個假設測試：

1. 定義假設 H
2. 設計探測命令 C
3. 預測「若 H 成立 → 期望 O」
4. 執行 C → 觀察實際結果
5. 更新假設集合
6. 選下一個最具鑑別力的探測

Termination

| Condition | Action | |-----------|--------| | 根因已定位 + ≥1 執行結果佐證 | **Stop** → Phase 3 | | ≥2 競爭假設無法區分 | **Brainstorm** → `/codex-brainstorm` 對抗辯論 | | 連續 2 輪無新資訊 | **Escalate** → `⚠️ Need Human` | | Max rounds (6) reached | **Escalate** → `⚠️ Need Human` |

`/codex-brainstorm` Integration

When ≥2 equally credible hypotheses exist: 1. Pause probe loop 2. Invoke `/codex-brainstorm` via Skill tool — topic = hypothesis comparison 3. Use Nash equilibrium result as new primary hypothesis 4. Resume probe loop to verify

Phase 3: Root Cause Confirmation

| Step | Action | Required | |------|--------|----------| | 3a | 總結根因（What + Why + Impact + Evidence） | ✅ | | 3b | `/seek-verdict --intent confirm` — Codex 獨立驗證 | ✅ Mandatory | | 3c | `/code-investigate` 雙視角深入驗證 | Optional | | 3d | `/git-investigate` 追蹤引入點（若 regression） | Conditional |

`/seek-verdict` Integration (Step 3b — Mandatory)

Invoke `/seek-verdict --intent confirm` for independent root cause verification.

**Anti-anchoring contract** (per `@skills/seek-verdict/SKILL.md`):

• **Fresh thread**: a new § Start dispatch, never a § Resume onto an existing thread
• **No Claude conclusions**: prompt must not contain Claude's probe findings or root cause judgment
• **Finding packet only**: provide symptoms, files, observed behavior — let Codex judge independently

**Result routing**:

| Result | Action | |--------|--------| | ACTIONABLE (confirm) | → Phase 4 | | NON_ACTIONABLE (high confidence) | Re-enter Phase 2 or `⚠️ Need Human` | | UNCERTAIN | → Phase 4 (conservative), note low confidence |

Phase 4: Fix + Verify

| Condition | Path | |-----------|------| | Simple fix (≤3 lines) | Edit + regression test + verify | | Complex fix (multi-file) | Delegate to `/bug-fix` | | Architecture-level change | `⛔ Need Human` — report root cause + recommendation |

**All fix paths require regression test** per `@rules/testing.md` evidence model. Bug type → test level mapping per `@skills/bug-fix/SKILL.md`.

Simple fix path: 1. Edit fix 2. Write regression test 3. Re-execute Phase 0 repro command (verify fix) 4. If code file changed → enter review loop (auto-loop)

Phase 5: Debug Report

Output format: see `references/report-template.md`.

Default: conversation-only output. With `--export [path]`, write to file (with redaction per Probe Safety Rules).

Probe Safety Rules

| Rule | Description | |------|-------------| | Read-first default | 預設探測為唯讀：`cat`, `curl -s`, `grep`, `ls`, `git log` | | Write-probe gate | 可能修改狀態的探測標記 `[WRITE_PROBE]`，非 sandbox 環境需用戶確認 | | Timeout | 每個探測命令 timeout ≤ 30 秒 | | Output budget | 單次探測輸出 ≤ 500 行（超出 truncate） | | Redaction | 禁止記錄 API keys, tokens, passwords（per `@rules/security.md`），以 `[REDACTED]` 取代 | | Deny list | 禁止：`rm`, `drop`, `delete`, `truncate`, 任何 destructive 操作 |

Config

| Key | Default | Description | |-----|---------|-------------| | `debug.max_probe_rounds` | 6 | Maximum probe loop iterations |

Review Loop

**MUST re-review after fix until PASS** (per @rules/auto-loop.md)

Fix → Review → Issues found → Fix again → ... → ✅ Pass → Next step

Doc Sync

Doc Sync is governed by `@rules/auto-loop.md` (behavior-layer rule). After precommit pass, triggers conditionally when changes map to `docs/features/`.

Output

## Debug Report: <title>
- **Type**: <classification>
- **Root Cause**: <what + why>
- **Fix**: <change d