[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M6DC15TK4DR3EZ3Z5MN91P39":3,"skill-same:01M6DC15TK4DR3EZ3Z5MN91P39":62},{"skillNo":4,"name":5,"nameZh":6,"description":7,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":16,"categories":17,"keywords":23,"publishedAt":31,"linkOnly":32,"markdownContent":33,"markdownBody":34,"frontMatter":35,"refName":36,"commitSha":37,"skillDirectory":38,"forksCount":14,"repositoryHtmlUrl":39,"repositoryHomepageUrl":6,"ownerHtmlUrl":40,"ownerBlogUrl":6,"ownerDescription":6,"updatedAt":41,"install":42,"resources":55},"01M6DC15TK4DR3EZ3Z5MN91P39","systematic-debugging",null,"Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes","Prekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain","Prekzursil","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F54636077?v=4","01M6DACZ1PCQHD99SCR1YXG28B","Andrei Mihai Visalon","01M6DACZ670WZF535V3WYYSS4Z",0,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002F.agents\u002Fskills\u002Fsystematic-debugging\u002FSKILL.md",[18],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000008","测试与质量","SCENARIO","使用场景",[24,25,26,27,28,29,30],"systematic debugging","debugging","systematic","test","behavior","use","bug","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: systematic-debugging\ndescription: Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes\n---\n\n# Systematic Debugging\n\n## Overview\n\nRandom fixes waste time and create new bugs. Quick patches mask underlying issues.\n\n**Core principle:** ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes. Symptom fixes are failure.\n\n**Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of debugging.**\n\n## The Iron Law\n\n```\nNO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST\n```\n\nIf you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.\n\n## When to Use\n\nUse for ANY technical issue:\n- Test failures\n- Bugs in production\n- Unexpected behavior\n- Performance problems\n- Build failures\n- Integration issues\n\n**Use this ESPECIALLY when:**\n- Under time pressure (emergencies make guessing tempting)\n- \"Just one quick fix\" seems obvious\n- You've already tried multiple fixes\n- Previous fix didn't work\n- You don't fully understand the issue\n\n**Don't skip when:**\n- Issue seems simple (simple bugs have root causes too)\n- You're in a hurry (rushing guarantees rework)\n- Manager wants it fixed NOW (systematic is faster than thrashing)\n\n## Control your detector\n\nEvery phase below turns a probe's output into a belief. Until you have shown the probe can tell\nthe two answers apart, \"nothing found\" \u002F \"it crashed\" \u002F \"it's fixed\" are claims about your\nINSTRUMENT, not about the system. Most absence findings are a broken matcher, a wrong shell, or a\nstale cache - not an absence.\n\n**1. Prove the probe FIRES on the known-broken state.**\n\nBefore a probe's silence counts as evidence, run it against input you know is bad and confirm it\nfires there. A probe that is silent in both states measures nothing, so its silence after a fix is\nnot proof the fix landed. This is the both-states test, and it is the cheapest step in this file.\n`tools\u002Fdetector-self-test\u002F` mechanizes it: point\n`python tools\u002Fdetector-self-test\u002Fdetector_self_test.py --root PATH` at a `broken\u002F` + `fixed\u002F`\nfixture pair and it fails any detector that is silent-in-both, firing-in-both, or inverted.\n\n**2. A control that cannot distinguish the two hypotheses is not a control.**\n\nState both hypotheses BEFORE you read the output, then ask what a PASS would look like under each.\nIf PASS looks identical under both, the control proves only that the instrument ran - it measured\nreadability, not your claim. This is the failure the both-states test does NOT catch, and it is the\nmore seductive one, because the control PASSES and you record it as diligence. Prefer a control\nthat COUNTS the thing you are comparing and fails closed when the count is implausible; a\nsuspiciously round, suspiciously equal number on both sides is more often a collection-level\nmistake than genuine parity.\n\n**3. Two traps that hand you a confident, wrong number.**\n\n- **The doubled zero.** `grep -c pat || echo 0` does not yield `0` when the pattern is absent - it\n  yields `0` twice, which compares unequal to `\"0\"` and corrupts every downstream test. Measured\n  2026-08-14 on this box: with the pattern ABSENT, `grep -c` printed `0` AND exited 1, so the `||`\n  fallback fired as well; the captured value was 3 bytes (`0`, newline, `0`) and `[ \"$out\" = \"0\" ]`\n  was false. Control: with the pattern PRESENT the same shape returned `1` and the fallback stayed\n  silent, so only the no-match path is broken. *Almost certain (90-99%)* - reproduced directly.\n\n- **A case-insensitive matcher cannot detect a case-change signature.** When the defect IS the case\n  (`Codex` where `codex` is correct), a case-insensitive probe fires on the clean file too and\n  manufactures a phantom hit. Measured 2026-08-14 on this box: PowerShell\n  `Select-String -Pattern 'by:Codex'` returned 1 hit against a known-GOOD file holding the correct\n  lowercase `by:codex`, so it could not distinguish the two states. Adding `-CaseSensitive` gave\n  known-bad 1 \u002F known-good 0, and `rg` (case-sensitive by default) agreed. `Select-String` is\n  case-insensitive unless you pass `-CaseSensitive`. *Almost certain (90-99%)* - reproduced\n  directly in both states.\n\n**When your probe and someone else's disagree, suspect YOUR probe first** - check that it is\nreading the collection you think it is reading, at the level you think it is.\n\n## The Four Phases\n\nYou MUST complete each phase before proceeding to the next.\n\n### Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation\n\n**BEFORE attempting ANY fix:**\n\n1. **Read Error Messages Carefully**\n   - Don't skip past errors or warnings\n   - They often contain the exact solution\n   - Read stack traces completely\n   - Note line numbers, file paths, error codes\n\n2. **Reproduce Consistently**\n   - Can you trigger it reliably?\n   - What are the exact steps?\n   - Does it happen every time?\n   - If not reproducible -> gather more data, don't guess\n\n3. **Check Recent Changes**\n   - What changed that could cause this?\n   - Git diff, recent commits\n   - New dependencies, config changes\n   - Environmental differences\n\n4. **Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems**\n\n   **WHEN system has multiple components (CI -> build -> signing, API -> service -> database):**\n\n   **BEFORE proposing fixes, add diagnostic instrumentation:**\n   ```\n   For EACH component boundary:\n     - Log what data enters component\n     - Log what data exits component\n     - Verify environment\u002Fconfig propagation\n     - Check state at each layer\n\n   Run once to gather evidence showing WHERE it breaks\n   THEN analyze evidence to identify failing component\n   THEN investigate that specific component\n   ```\n\n   **Example (multi-layer system):**\n   ```bash\n   # Layer 1: Workflow\n   echo \"=== Secrets available in workflow: ===\"\n   echo \"IDENTITY: ${IDENTITY:+SET}${IDENTITY:-UNSET}\"\n\n   # Layer 2: Build script\n   echo \"=== Env vars in build script: ===\"\n   env | grep IDENTITY || echo \"IDENTITY not in environment\"\n\n   # Layer 3: Signing script\n   echo \"=== Keychain state: ===\"\n   security list-keychains\n   security find-identity -v\n\n   # Layer 4: Actual signing\n   codesign --sign \"$IDENTITY\" --verbose=4 \"$APP\"\n   ```\n\n   **This reveals:** Which layer fails (secrets -> workflow OK, workflow -> build X)\n\n5. **Trace Data Flow**\n\n   **WHEN error is deep in call stack:**\n\n   See `root-cause-tracing.md` in this directory for the complete backward tracing technique.\n\n   **Quick version:**\n   - Where does bad value originate?\n   - What called this with bad value?\n   - Keep tracing up until you find the source\n   - Fix at source, not at symptom\n\n### Phase 2: Pattern Analysis\n\n**Find the pattern before fixing:**\n\n1. **Find Working Examples**\n   - Locate similar working code in same codebase\n   - What works that's similar to what's broken?\n\n2. **Compare Against References**\n   - If implementing pattern, read reference implementation COMPLETELY\n   - Don't skim - read every line\n   - Understand the pattern fully before applying\n\n3. **Identify Differences**\n   - What's different between working and broken?\n   - List every difference, however small\n   - Don't assume \"that can't matter\"\n\n4. **Understand Dependencies**\n   - What other components does this need?\n   - What settings, config, environment?\n   - What assumptions does it make?\n\n### Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing\n\n**Scientific method:**\n\n1. **Form Single Hypothesis**\n   - State clearly: \"I think X is the root cause because Y\"\n   - Write it down\n   - Be specific, not vague\n\n2. **Test Minimally**\n   - Make the SMALLEST possible change to test hypothesis\n   - One variable at a time\n   - Don't fix multiple things at once\n\n3. **Verify Before Continuing**\n   - Did it work? Yes -> Phase 4\n   - Didn't work? Form NEW hypothesis\n   - DON'T add more fixes on top\n   - A silent probe proves nothing until it has passed the both-states test (see \"Control your\n     detector\" above) - otherwise you are reading your instrument, not the bug\n\n4. **When You Don't Know**\n   - Say \"I don't understand X\"\n   - Don't pretend to know\n   - Ask for help\n   - Research more\n\n### Phase 4: Implementation\n\n**Fix the root cause, not the symptom:**\n\n1. **Create Failing Test Case**\n   - Simplest possible reproduction\n   - Automated test if possible\n   - One-off test script if no framework\n   - MUST have before fixing\n   - Use the `superpowers:test-driven-development` skill for writing proper failing tests\n\n2. **Implement Single Fix**\n   - Address the root cause identified\n   - ONE change at a time\n   - No \"while I'm here\" improvements\n   - No bundled refactoring\n\n3. **Verify Fix**\n   - Test passes now?\n   - No other tests broken?\n   - Issue actually resolved?\n\n4. **If Fix Doesn't Work**\n   - STOP\n   - Count: How many fixes have you tried?\n   - If \u003C 3: Return to Phase 1, re-analyze with new information\n   - **If >= 3: STOP and question the architecture (step 5 below)**\n   - DON'T attempt Fix #4 without architectural discussion\n\n5. **If 3+ Fixes Failed: Question Architecture**\n\n   **Pattern indicating architectural problem:**\n   - Each fix reveals new shared state\u002Fcoupling\u002Fproblem in different place\n   - Fixes require \"massive refactoring\" to implement\n   - Each fix creates new symptoms elsewhere\n\n   **STOP and question fundamentals:**\n   - Is this pattern fundamentally sound?\n   - Are we \"sticking with it through sheer inertia\"?\n   - Should we refactor architecture vs. continue fixing symptoms?\n\n   **Discuss with your human partner before attempting more fixes**\n\n   This is NOT a failed hypothesis - this is a wrong architecture.\n\n## Red Flags - STOP and Follow Process\n\nIf you catch yourself thinking:\n- \"Quick fix for now, investigate later\"\n- \"Just try changing X and see if it works\"\n- \"Add multiple changes, run tests\"\n- \"Skip the test, I'll manually verify\"\n- \"It's probably X, let me fix that\"\n- \"I don't fully understand but this might work\"\n- \"Pattern says X but I'll adapt it differently\"\n- \"Here are the main problems: [lists fixes without investigation]\"\n- Proposing solutions before tracing data flow\n- **\"One more fix attempt\" (when already tried 2+)**\n- **Each fix reveals new problem in different place**\n\n**ALL of these mean: STOP. Return to Phase 1.**\n\n**If 3+ fixes failed:** Question the architecture (see Phase 4.5)\n\n## your human partner's Signals You're Doing It Wrong\n\n**Watch for these redirections:**\n- \"Is that not happening?\" - You assumed without verifying\n- \"Will it show us...?\" - You should have added evidence gathering\n- \"Stop guessing\" - You're proposing fixes without understanding\n- \"Ultrathink this\" - Question fundamentals, not just symptoms\n- \"We're stuck?\" (frustrated) - Your approach isn't working\n\n**When you see these:** STOP. Return to Phase 1.\n\n## Common Rationalizations\n\n| Excuse | Reality |\n|--------|---------|\n| \"Issue is simple, don't need process\" | Simple issues have root causes too. Process is fast for simple bugs. |\n| \"Emergency, no time for process\" | Systematic debugging is FASTER than guess-and-check thrashing. |\n| \"Just try this first, then investigate\" | First fix sets the pattern. Do it right from the start. |\n| \"I'll write test after confirming fix works\" | Untested fixes don't stick. Test first proves it. |\n| \"Multiple fixes at once saves time\" | Can't isolate what worked. Causes new bugs. |\n| \"Reference too long, I'll adapt the pattern\" | Partial understanding guarantees bugs. Read it completely. |\n| \"I see the problem, let me fix it\" | Seeing symptoms = understanding root cause. |\n| \"One more fix attempt\" (after 2+ failures) | 3+ failures = architectural problem. Question pattern, don't fix again. |\n\n## Quick Reference\n\n| Phase | Key Activities | Success Criteria |\n|-------|---------------|------------------|\n| **1. Root Cause** | Read errors, reproduce, check changes, gather evidence | Understand WHAT and WHY |\n| **2. Pattern** | Find working examples, compare | Identify differences |\n| **3. Hypothesis** | Form theory, test minimally | Confirmed or new hypothesis |\n| **4. Implementation** | Create test, fix, verify | Bug resolved, tests pass |\n\n## When Process Reveals \"No Root Cause\"\n\nIf systematic investigation reveals issue is truly environmental, timing-dependent, or external:\n\n1. You've completed the process\n2. Document what you investigated\n3. Implement appropriate handling (retry, timeout, error message)\n4. Add monitoring\u002Flogging for future investigation\n\n**But:** 95% of \"no root cause\" cases are incomplete investigation.\n\n## Supporting Techniques\n\nThese techniques are part of systematic debugging and available in this directory:\n\n- **`root-cause-tracing.md`** - Trace bugs backward through call stack to find original trigger\n- **`defense-in-depth.md`** - Add validation at multiple layers after finding root cause\n- **`condition-based-waiting.md`** - Replace arbitrary timeouts with condition polling\n\n**Related skills:**\n- **superpowers:test-driven-development** - For creating failing test case (Phase 4, Step 1)\n- **superpowers:verification-before-completion** - Verify fix worked before claiming success\n\n## Real-World Impact\n\nFrom debugging sessions:\n- Systematic approach: 15-30 minutes to fix\n- Random fixes approach: 2-3 hours of thrashing\n- First-time fix rate: 95% vs 40%\n- New bugs introduced: Near zero vs common\n","# Systematic Debugging\n\n## Overview\n\nRandom fixes waste time and create new bugs. Quick patches mask underlying issues.\n\n**Core principle:** ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes. Symptom fixes are failure.\n\n**Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of debugging.**\n\n## The Iron Law\n\n```\nNO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST\n```\n\nIf you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.\n\n## When to Use\n\nUse for ANY technical issue:\n- Test failures\n- Bugs in production\n- Unexpected behavior\n- Performance problems\n- Build failures\n- Integration issues\n\n**Use this ESPECIALLY when:**\n- Under time pressure (emergencies make guessing tempting)\n- \"Just one quick fix\" seems obvious\n- You've already tried multiple fixes\n- Previous fix didn't work\n- You don't fully understand the issue\n\n**Don't skip when:**\n- Issue seems simple (simple bugs have root causes too)\n- You're in a hurry (rushing guarantees rework)\n- Manager wants it fixed NOW (systematic is faster than thrashing)\n\n## Control your detector\n\nEvery phase below turns a probe's output into a belief. Until you have shown the probe can tell\nthe two answers apart, \"nothing found\" \u002F \"it crashed\" \u002F \"it's fixed\" are claims about your\nINSTRUMENT, not about the system. Most absence findings are a broken matcher, a wrong shell, or a\nstale cache - not an absence.\n\n**1. Prove the probe FIRES on the known-broken state.**\n\nBefore a probe's silence counts as evidence, run it against input you know is bad and confirm it\nfires there. A probe that is silent in both states measures nothing, so its silence after a fix is\nnot proof the fix landed. This is the both-states test, and it is the cheapest step in this file.\n`tools\u002Fdetector-self-test\u002F` mechanizes it: point\n`python tools\u002Fdetector-self-test\u002Fdetector_self_test.py --root PATH` at a `broken\u002F` + `fixed\u002F`\nfixture pair and it fails any detector that is silent-in-both, firing-in-both, or inverted.\n\n**2. A control that cannot distinguish the two hypotheses is not a control.**\n\nState both hypotheses BEFORE you read the output, then ask what a PASS would look like under each.\nIf PASS looks identical under both, the control proves only that the instrument ran - it measured\nreadability, not your claim. This is the failure the both-states test does NOT catch, and it is the\nmore seductive one, because the control PASSES and you record it as diligence. Prefer a control\nthat COUNTS the thing you are comparing and fails closed when the count is implausible; a\nsuspiciously round, suspiciously equal number on both sides is more often a collection-level\nmistake than genuine parity.\n\n**3. Two traps that hand you a confident, wrong number.**\n\n- **The doubled zero.** `grep -c pat || echo 0` does not yield `0` when the pattern is absent - it\n  yields `0` twice, which compares unequal to `\"0\"` and corrupts every downstream test. Measured\n  2026-08-14 on this box: with the pattern ABSENT, `grep -c` printed `0` AND exited 1, so the `||`\n  fallback fired as well; the captured value was 3 bytes (`0`, newline, `0`) and `[ \"$out\" = \"0\" ]`\n  was false. Control: with the pattern PRESENT the same shape returned `1` and the fallback stayed\n  silent, so only the no-match path is broken. *Almost certain (90-99%)* - reproduced directly.\n\n- **A case-insensitive matcher cannot detect a case-change signature.** When the defect IS the case\n  (`Codex` where `codex` is correct), a case-insensitive probe fires on the clean file too and\n  manufactures a phantom hit. Measured 2026-08-14 on this box: PowerShell\n  `Select-String -Pattern 'by:Codex'` returned 1 hit against a known-GOOD file holding the correct\n  lowercase `by:codex`, so it could not distinguish the two states. Adding `-CaseSensitive` gave\n  known-bad 1 \u002F known-good 0, and `rg` (case-sensitive by default) agreed. `Select-String` is\n  case-insensitive unless you pass `-CaseSensitive`. *Almost certain (90-99%)* - reproduced\n  directly in both states.\n\n**When your probe and someone else's disagree, suspect YOUR probe first** - check that it is\nreading the collection you think it is reading, at the level you think it is.\n\n## The Four Phases\n\nYou MUST complete each phase before proceeding to the next.\n\n### Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation\n\n**BEFORE attempting ANY fix:**\n\n1. **Read Error Messages Carefully**\n   - Don't skip past errors or warnings\n   - They often contain the exact solution\n   - Read stack traces completely\n   - Note line numbers, file paths, error codes\n\n2. **Reproduce Consistently**\n   - Can you trigger it reliably?\n   - What are the exact steps?\n   - Does it happen every time?\n   - If not reproducible -> gather more data, don't guess\n\n3. **Check Recent Changes**\n   - What changed that could cause this?\n   - Git diff, recent commits\n   - New dependencies, config changes\n   - Environmental differences\n\n4. **Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems**\n\n   **WHEN system has multiple components (CI -> build -> signing, API -> service -> database):**\n\n   **BEFORE proposing fixes, add diagnostic instrumentation:**\n   ```\n   For EACH component boundary:\n     - Log what data enters component\n     - Log what data exits component\n     - Verify environment\u002Fconfig propagation\n     - Check state at each layer\n\n   Run once to gather evidence showing WHERE it breaks\n   THEN analyze evidence to identify failing component\n   THEN investigate that specific component\n   ```\n\n   **Example (multi-layer system):**\n   ```bash\n   # Layer 1: Workflow\n   echo \"=== Secrets available in workflow: ===\"\n   echo \"IDENTITY: ${IDENTITY:+SET}${IDENTITY:-UNSET}\"\n\n   # Layer 2: Build script\n   echo \"=== Env vars in build script: ===\"\n   env | grep IDENTITY || echo \"IDENTITY not in environment\"\n\n   # Layer 3: Signing script\n   echo \"=== Keychain state: ===\"\n   security list-keychains\n   security find-identity -v\n\n   # Layer 4: Actual signing\n   codesign --sign \"$IDENTITY\" --verbose=4 \"$APP\"\n   ```\n\n   **This reveals:** Which layer fails (secrets -> workflow OK, workflow -> build X)\n\n5. **Trace Data Flow**\n\n   **WHEN error is deep in call stack:**\n\n   See `root-cause-tracing.md` in this directory for the complete backward tracing technique.\n\n   **Quick version:**\n   - Where does bad value originate?\n   - What called this with bad value?\n   - Keep tracing up until you find the source\n   - Fix at source, not at symptom\n\n### Phase 2: Pattern Analysis\n\n**Find the pattern before fixing:**\n\n1. **Find Working Examples**\n   - Locate similar working code in same codebase\n   - What works that's similar to what's broken?\n\n2. **Compare Against References**\n   - If implementing pattern, read reference implementation COMPLETELY\n   - Don't skim - read every line\n   - Understand the pattern fully before applying\n\n3. **Identify Differences**\n   - What's different between working and broken?\n   - List every difference, however small\n   - Don't assume \"that can't matter\"\n\n4. **Understand Dependencies**\n   - What other components does this need?\n   - What settings, config, environment?\n   - What assumptions does it make?\n\n### Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing\n\n**Scientific method:**\n\n1. **Form Single Hypothesis**\n   - State clearly: \"I think X is the root cause because Y\"\n   - Write it down\n   - Be specific, not vague\n\n2. **Test Minimally**\n   - Make the SMALLEST possible change to test hypothesis\n   - One variable at a time\n   - Don't fix multiple things at once\n\n3. **Verify Before Continuing**\n   - Did it work? Yes -> Phase 4\n   - Didn't work? Form NEW hypothesis\n   - DON'T add more fixes on top\n   - A silent probe proves nothing until it has passed the both-states test (see \"Control your\n     detector\" above) - otherwise you are reading your instrument, not the bug\n\n4. **When You Don't Know**\n   - Say \"I don't understand X\"\n   - Don't pretend to know\n   - Ask for help\n   - Research more\n\n### Phase 4: Implementation\n\n**Fix the root cause, not the symptom:**\n\n1. **Create Failing Test Case**\n   - Simplest possible reproduction\n   - Automated test if possible\n   - One-off test script if no framework\n   - MUST have before fixing\n   - Use the `superpowers:test-driven-development` skill for writing proper failing tests\n\n2. **Implement Single Fix**\n   - Address the root cause identified\n   - ONE change at a time\n   - No \"while I'm here\" improvements\n   - No bundled refactoring\n\n3. **Verify Fix**\n   - Test passes now?\n   - No other tests broken?\n   - Issue actually resolved?\n\n4. **If Fix Doesn't Work**\n   - STOP\n   - Count: How many fixes have you tried?\n   - If \u003C 3: Return to Phase 1, re-analyze with new information\n   - **If >= 3: STOP and question the architecture (step 5 below)**\n   - DON'T attempt Fix #4 without architectural discussion\n\n5. **If 3+ Fixes Failed: Question Architecture**\n\n   **Pattern indicating architectural problem:**\n   - Each fix reveals new shared state\u002Fcoupling\u002Fproblem in different place\n   - Fixes require \"massive refactoring\" to implement\n   - Each fix creates new symptoms elsewhere\n\n   **STOP and question fundamentals:**\n   - Is this pattern fundamentally sound?\n   - Are we \"sticking with it through sheer inertia\"?\n   - Should we refactor architecture vs. continue fixing symptoms?\n\n   **Discuss with your human partner before attempting more fixes**\n\n   This is NOT a failed hypothesis - this is a wrong architecture.\n\n## Red Flags - STOP and Follow Process\n\nIf you catch yourself thinking:\n- \"Quick fix for now, investigate later\"\n- \"Just try changing X and see if it works\"\n- \"Add multiple changes, run tests\"\n- \"Skip the test, I'll manually verify\"\n- \"It's probably X, let me fix that\"\n- \"I don't fully understand but this might work\"\n- \"Pattern says X but I'll adapt it differently\"\n- \"Here are the main problems: [lists fixes without investigation]\"\n- Proposing solutions before tracing data flow\n- **\"One more fix attempt\" (when already tried 2+)**\n- **Each fix reveals new problem in different place**\n\n**ALL of these mean: STOP. Return to Phase 1.**\n\n**If 3+ fixes failed:** Question the architecture (see Phase 4.5)\n\n## your human partner's Signals You're Doing It Wrong\n\n**Watch for these redirections:**\n- \"Is that not happening?\" - You assumed without verifying\n- \"Will it show us...?\" - You should have added evidence gathering\n- \"Stop guessing\" - You're proposing fixes without understanding\n- \"Ultrathink this\" - Question fundamentals, not just symptoms\n- \"We're stuck?\" (frustrated) - Your approach isn't working\n\n**When you see these:** STOP. Return to Phase 1.\n\n## Common Rationalizations\n\n| Excuse | Reality |\n|--------|---------|\n| \"Issue is simple, don't need process\" | Simple issues have root causes too. Process is fast for simple bugs. |\n| \"Emergency, no time for process\" | Systematic debugging is FASTER than guess-and-check thrashing. |\n| \"Just try this first, then investigate\" | First fix sets the pattern. Do it right from the start. |\n| \"I'll write test after confirming fix works\" | Untested fixes don't stick. Test first proves it. |\n| \"Multiple fixes at once saves time\" | Can't isolate what worked. Causes new bugs. |\n| \"Reference too long, I'll adapt the pattern\" | Partial understanding guarantees bugs. Read it completely. |\n| \"I see the problem, let me fix it\" | Seeing symptoms = understanding root cause. |\n| \"One more fix attempt\" (after 2+ failures) | 3+ failures = architectural problem. Question pattern, don't fix again. |\n\n## Quick Reference\n\n| Phase | Key Activities | Success Criteria |\n|-------|---------------|------------------|\n| **1. Root Cause** | Read errors, reproduce, check changes, gather evidence | Understand WHAT and WHY |\n| **2. Pattern** | Find working examples, compare | Identify differences |\n| **3. Hypothesis** | Form theory, test minimally | Confirmed or new hypothesis |\n| **4. Implementation** | Create test, fix, verify | Bug resolved, tests pass |\n\n## When Process Reveals \"No Root Cause\"\n\nIf systematic investigation reveals issue is truly environmental, timing-dependent, or external:\n\n1. You've completed the process\n2. Document what you investigated\n3. Implement appropriate handling (retry, timeout, error message)\n4. Add monitoring\u002Flogging for future investigation\n\n**But:** 95% of \"no root cause\" cases are incomplete investigation.\n\n## Supporting Techniques\n\nThese techniques are part of systematic debugging and available in this directory:\n\n- **`root-cause-tracing.md`** - Trace bugs backward through call stack to find original trigger\n- **`defense-in-depth.md`** - Add validation at multiple layers after finding root cause\n- **`condition-based-waiting.md`** - Replace arbitrary timeouts with condition polling\n\n**Related skills:**\n- **superpowers:test-driven-development** - For creating failing test case (Phase 4, Step 1)\n- **superpowers:verification-before-completion** - Verify fix worked before claiming success\n\n## Real-World Impact\n\nFrom debugging sessions:\n- Systematic approach: 15-30 minutes to fix\n- Random fixes approach: 2-3 hours of thrashing\n- First-time fix rate: 95% vs 40%\n- New bugs introduced: Near zero vs common\n",{"name":5,"description":7},"main","a298c929b6cbd662e1fce54302ce520d5ceea1a5",".agents\u002Fskills\u002Fsystematic-debugging","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil","2026-11-02 14:30:57",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":43,"prompt":53,"zipAvailable":54},[44,47,50],{"tool":45,"command":46},"npx","npx skills add Prekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain --skill systematic-debugging",{"tool":48,"command":49},"bunx","bunx skills add Prekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain --skill systematic-debugging",{"tool":51,"command":52},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add Prekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain --skill systematic-debugging","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002F.agents\u002Fskills\u002Fsystematic-debugging\u002FSKILL.md",true,[56],{"path":57,"resourceType":58,"resourceTypeDesc":59,"sizeBytes":60,"sourceHtmlUrl":61},"agents\u002Fopenai.yaml","REFERENCE","参考文档",173,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002F.agents\u002Fskills\u002Fsystematic-debugging\u002Fagents\u002Fopenai.yaml",[63,84,113,138,152,168],{"skillNo":64,"name":65,"nameZh":6,"description":66,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":67,"categories":68,"keywords":69,"publishedAt":31},"01M6DF7D7478R55P46REYH4QAC","clarify-requirements","Resolve genuine pre-execution ambiguity by scanning repo context, generating 1-6 grounded options, and asking 1-3 focused questions via AskUserQuestion. NOT for mid-task use (injection risk); NOT when the goal is already unambiguous; use to disambiguate vague prompts before any file edits.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftools\u002Fworkspace-hooks\u002Fskills\u002Fclarify-requirements\u002FSKILL.md",[],[70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,29,79,80,81,82,83],"clarify requirements","clarify","requirements","risk","options","task","prompts","goal","scanning","context","repo","injection","execution","file",{"skillNo":85,"name":86,"nameZh":6,"description":87,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":88,"categories":89,"keywords":93,"publishedAt":31},"01M6DF79CA4BHJS66J8EZDBPWJ","openmm-md","Run FREE, open-source, Windows-native GPU molecular dynamics via the openmm-md MCP (OpenMM + CUDA on the local NVIDIA GPU). Use for protein \u002F protein-ligand MD when you want a free stack or are on Windows without a Schrodinger license. Covers the full workflow (prepare, solvate, minimize, equilibrate, production, analyze, mmgbsa) AND an honest decision guide vs Schrodinger Desmond, including how to run Desmond legitimately on Linux or a cloud GPU with a real license. This is a deliberately LESSER free alternative and does NOT replace the schrodinger MCP tools. Do NOT use it to pick a free tool when a validated FEP+, WaterMap, IFD-MD, or Prime MM-GBSA result is actually required.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftools\u002Fmcp\u002Fopenmm-md-mcp\u002Fskill\u002Fopenmm-md\u002FSKILL.md",[90],{"categoryNo":91,"categoryName":92,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000023","Skill与智能体开发",[94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,29,108,109,110,111,112],"openmm md","how","decision","pick","linux","analyze","tool","stack","open","NVIDIA","gpu","license","workflow","windows","free","molecular dynamics","local","do","MCP",{"skillNo":114,"name":115,"nameZh":6,"description":116,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":117,"categories":118,"keywords":123,"publishedAt":31},"01M6DF76C1MG85VEWP8VZCBNMN","visual-review","Take screenshots of web pages and UI using Playwright for visual review and iteration","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftools\u002Feditor\u002Fmetaswarm\u002Fskills\u002Fvisual-review\u002FSKILL.md",[119,122],{"categoryNo":120,"categoryName":121,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000003","演示文稿",{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,95,134,135,136,137],"review","visual","visual review","pages","web","false","iteration","take","check","slides","ui","screenshot","playwright","screenshots",{"skillNo":139,"name":140,"nameZh":6,"description":141,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":142,"categories":143,"keywords":144,"publishedAt":31},"01M6DF73AQVCBZKEN0YXEX9FXP","status","Diagnostic status report — shows metaswarm installation state, project setup, and potential issues","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftools\u002Feditor\u002Fmetaswarm\u002Fskills\u002Fstatus\u002FSKILL.md",[],[140,145,146,147,148,149,150,151],"setup","report","project","installation","project setup","issues","state",{"skillNo":153,"name":154,"nameZh":6,"description":155,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":156,"categories":157,"keywords":159,"publishedAt":31},"01M6DF6X6C2XB0P6GX76P7TTYV","start","Use when starting work on any task, when the user mentions metaswarm, or when the user wants to begin tracked development work","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftools\u002Feditor\u002Fmetaswarm\u002Fskills\u002Fstart\u002FSKILL.md",[158],{"categoryNo":91,"categoryName":92,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[154,160,75,161,162,163,29,164,165,166,167],"start issue","issue","ready","work on issue","user","work","work on","development",{"skillNo":169,"name":145,"nameZh":6,"description":170,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":171,"categories":172,"keywords":173,"publishedAt":31},"01M6DF6QMJ9AJKFKHHKRT005PQ","Interactive project setup — detects your project, configures metaswarm, writes project-local files","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FPrekzursil\u002Fagent-skills-toolchain\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Ftools\u002Feditor\u002Fmetaswarm\u002Fskills\u002Fsetup\u002FSKILL.md",[],[145,147,110,174,149,175],"files","interactive"]