/debug-mastery
Systematic debugging methodology with 4-phase process, root cause tracing, and elite observability standards. No fixes without investigation.
$ npx -y skills add xenitv1/claude-code-maestro --skill debug-mastery --agent claude-codeHow it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
- Fires itselfAuto-invocation. Claude auto-loads it when your prompt matches the work.Auto-invocation is when the right skill fires by itself at the right moment, driven by a FLOW.md router and a hook, instead of you invoking it by name. It is the difference between a skill being installed and a skill actually getting used.Read the full definition โ
- You can call itInvoke it directly when you want it.
- Slash command
/debug-mastery
Context preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
Systematic debugging methodology with 4-phase process, root cause tracing, and elite observability standards. No fixes without investigation.
SKILL.md
debug-mastery.SKILL.mdname: debug-mastery
description: Systematic debugging methodology with 4-phase process, root cause tracing, and elite observability standards. No fixes without investigation.
allowed-tools: Read, Write, Edit, Glob, Grep, Bash
<domain_overview>
๐ DEBUG MASTERY: SYSTEMATIC DEBUGGING
> **Philosophy:** Random fixes waste time and create new bugs. Quick patches mask underlying issues. ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes. **FORENSIC ANALYSIS MANDATE (CRITICAL):** Never apply a fix without a confirmed root cause. AI-generated fixes often address symptoms rather than underlying architectural logic. You MUST perform a 'Forensic Investigation' that identifies the specific assumption or boundary condition that failed. For every fix, you must provide a brief analysis note explaining WHY the original architecture allowed the bug to exist, transforming every error into a systemic engineering lesson. ---
๐จ THE IRON LAW
NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST
If you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes. **Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of debugging.** ---
๐ WHEN TO USE
Use for ANY technical issue:
- Test failures
- Bugs in production
- Unexpected behavior
- Performance problems
- Build failures
- Integration issues
**Use 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 (systematic is faster than thrashing)
- Manager wants it fixed NOW (systematic is faster than guess-and-check)
</domain_overview> <debugging_phases>
๐ 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
- They often contain the exact solution
- Read stack traces completely
- Note line numbers, file paths, error codes
2. **Reproduce Consistently**
- Can you trigger it reliably?
- What are the exact steps?
- Does it happen every time?
- If not reproducible โ gather more data, don't guess
3. **Check Recent Changes**
- What changed that could cause this?
- Git diff, recent commits
- New dependencies, config changes
- Environmental differences
4. **Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems** **WHEN system has multiple components (CI โ build โ signing, API โ service โ 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 component5. **Trace Data Flow** **WHEN error is deep in call stack:** See `@root-cause-tracing.md` 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:** 1. **Find Working Examples**
- Locate similar working code in same codebase
- What works that's similar to what's broken?
2. **Compare Against References**
- If implementing pattern, read reference implementation COMPLETELY
- Don't skim - read every line
- Understand the pattern fully before applying
3. **Identify Differences**
- What's different between working and broken?
- List every difference, however small
- Don't assume "that can't matter"
4. **Understand Dependencies**
- What other components does this need?
- What settings, config, environment?
- What assumptions does it make?
Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing
**Scientific method:** 1. **Form Single Hypothesis**
- State clearly: "I think X is the root cause because Y"
- Write it down
- Be specific, not vague
2. **Test Minimally**
- Make the SMALLEST possible change to test hypothesis
- One variable at a time
- Don't fix multiple things at once
3. **Verify Before Continuing**
- Did it work? Yes โ Phase 4
- 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
- Ask for help
- Research more
Phase 4: Implementation
**Fix the root cause, not the symptom:** 1. **Create Failing Test Case**
- Simplest possible reproduction
- Automated test if possible
- One-off test script if no framework
- MUST have before fixing
- Use the `@tdd-mastery` skill for writing proper failing tests
2. **Implement Single Fix**
- Address the root cause identified
- ONE change at a time
- No "while I'm here" improvements
- No bundled refactoring
3. **Verify Fix**
- Test passes now?
- No other tests broken?
- Issue actually resolved?
4. **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 โฅ 3: STOP and question the architecture (step 5 below)**
- DON'T attempt Fix #4 without architectural discussion
5. **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 user before attem
Read more
name: debug-mastery description: Systematic debugging methodology with 4-phase process, root cause tracing, and elite observability standards. No fixes without investigation. allowed-tools: Read, Write, Edit, Glob, Grep, Bash
<domain_overview>
๐ DEBUG MASTERY: SYSTEMATIC DEBUGGING
> **Philosophy:** Random fixes waste time and create new bugs. Quick patches mask underlying issues. ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes. **FORENSIC ANALYSIS MANDATE (CRITICAL):** Never apply a fix without a confirmed root cause. AI-generated fixes often address symptoms rather than underlying architectural logic. You MUST perform a 'Forensic Investigation' that identifies the specific assumption or boundary condition that failed. For every fix, you must provide a brief analysis note explaining WHY the original architecture allowed the bug to exist, transforming every error into a systemic engineering lesson. ---
๐จ THE IRON LAW
NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST
If you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes. **Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of debugging.** ---
๐ WHEN TO USE
Use for ANY technical issue:
- Test failures
- Bugs in production
- Unexpected behavior
- Performance problems
- Build failures
- Integration issues
**Use 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 (systematic is faster than thrashing)
- Manager wants it fixed NOW (systematic is faster than guess-and-check)
</domain_overview> <debugging_phases>
๐ 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
- They often contain the exact solution
- Read stack traces completely
- Note line numbers, file paths, error codes
2. **Reproduce Consistently**
- Can you trigger it reliably?
- What are the exact steps?
- Does it happen every time?
- If not reproducible โ gather more data, don't guess
3. **Check Recent Changes**
- What changed that could cause this?
- Git diff, recent commits
- New dependencies, config changes
- Environmental differences
4. **Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems** **WHEN system has multiple components (CI โ build โ signing, API โ service โ 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 component5. **Trace Data Flow** **WHEN error is deep in call stack:** See `@root-cause-tracing.md` 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:** 1. **Find Working Examples**
- Locate similar working code in same codebase
- What works that's similar to what's broken?
2. **Compare Against References**
- If implementing pattern, read reference implementation COMPLETELY
- Don't skim - read every line
- Understand the pattern fully before applying
3. **Identify Differences**
- What's different between working and broken?
- List every difference, however small
- Don't assume "that can't matter"
4. **Understand Dependencies**
- What other components does this need?
- What settings, config, environment?
- What assumptions does it make?
Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing
**Scientific method:** 1. **Form Single Hypothesis**
- State clearly: "I think X is the root cause because Y"
- Write it down
- Be specific, not vague
2. **Test Minimally**
- Make the SMALLEST possible change to test hypothesis
- One variable at a time
- Don't fix multiple things at once
3. **Verify Before Continuing**
- Did it work? Yes โ Phase 4
- 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
- Ask for help
- Research more
Phase 4: Implementation
**Fix the root cause, not the symptom:** 1. **Create Failing Test Case**
- Simplest possible reproduction
- Automated test if possible
- One-off test script if no framework
- MUST have before fixing
- Use the `@tdd-mastery` skill for writing proper failing tests
2. **Implement Single Fix**
- Address the root cause identified
- ONE change at a time
- No "while I'm here" improvements
- No bundled refactoring
3. **Verify Fix**
- Test passes now?
- No other tests broken?
- Issue actually resolved?
4. **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 โฅ 3: STOP and question the architecture (step 5 below)**
- DON'T attempt Fix #4 without architectural discussion
5. **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 user before attem
Elite-tier orchestration framework for Claude Code CLI. Supercharges AI development through specialized agents, modular skills, intelligent hooks, and persistent memory systems. Author: xenitV1 โข X/Twitter Philosophy: "Why over How.
Repo: xenitv1/claude-code-maestro
Other skills on maestro.
- /backend-design
Elite Tier Backend standards, including Vertical Slice Architecture, Zero Trust Security, and High-Performance API protocols.
Open skill - /brainstorming
Design-first methodology. Explore user intent, requirements and design before implementation. Turn ideas into fully formed specs through collaborative dialogue.
Open skill - /browser-extension
Master specialized skill for building 2025/2026-grade browser extensions. Deep expertise in Manifest v3, Service Worker persistence (Alarms, Offscreen API), Side Panel API, and Cross-Browser compatibility.
Open skill - /clean-code
The Foundation Skill. LLM Firewall + 2025 Security + Cross-Skill Coordination. Use for ALL code output - prevents hallucinations, enforces security, ensures quality.
Open skill - /frontend-design
Elite Tier Web UI standards, including pixel-perfect retro aesthetics, immersive layouts, and UX psychology protocols.
Open skill - /git-worktrees
Create isolated git workspaces for feature development. Smart directory selection, safety verification, and cross-platform support (Windows/Unix).
Open skill

