Index of every page on this site: llms.txt
All skills
obra avatar

/systematic-debugging

@22f0b46 official
by Jesse Vincentobra/superpowers312k stars
27,751
Run it yourself

Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes

Use this Skill: https://skilld.dev/gh/obra/superpowers/systematic-debugging

Nothing lands on disk. Nothing to clean up.

Fork this Skill

Edit a local copy. It keeps the author and licence.

root-cause-tracing.md

≈1.3k tokens on demand. Your agent reads this file only when SKILL.md points to it.

Root Cause Tracing

Overview

Bugs often manifest deep in the call stack (git init in wrong directory, file created in wrong location, database opened with wrong path). Your instinct is to fix where the error appears, but that's treating a symptom.

Core principle: Trace backward through the call chain until you find the original trigger, then fix at the source.

When to Use

digraph when_to_use {
    "Bug appears deep in stack?" [shape=diamond];
    "Can trace backwards?" [shape=diamond];
    "Fix at symptom point" [shape=box];
    "Trace to original trigger" [shape=box];
    "BETTER: Also add defense-in-depth" [shape=box];

    "Bug appears deep in stack?" -> "Can trace backwards?" [label="yes"];
    "Can trace backwards?" -> "Trace to original trigger" [label="yes"];
    "Can trace backwards?" -> "Fix at symptom point" [label="no - dead end"];
    "Trace to original trigger" -> "BETTER: Also add defense-in-depth";
}

Use when:

  • Error happens deep in execution (not at entry point)
  • Stack trace shows long call chain
  • Unclear where invalid data originated
  • Need to find which test/code triggers the problem

The Tracing Process

1. Observe the Symptom

Error: git init failed in ~/project/packages/core

2. Find Immediate Cause

What code directly causes this?

await execFileAsync('git', ['init'], { cwd: projectDir });

3. Ask: What Called This?

WorktreeManager.createSessionWorktree(projectDir, sessionId)
  → called by Session.initializeWorkspace()
  → called by Session.create()
  → called by test at Project.create()

4. Keep Tracing Up

What value was passed?

  • projectDir = '' (empty string!)
  • Empty string as cwd resolves to process.cwd()
  • That's the source code directory!

5. Find Original Trigger

Where did empty string come from?

const context = setupCoreTest(); // Returns { tempDir: '' }
Project.create('name', context.tempDir); // Accessed before beforeEach!

Adding Stack Traces

When you can't trace manually, add instrumentation:

// Before the problematic operation
async function gitInit(directory: string) {
  const stack = new Error().stack;
  console.error('DEBUG git init:', {
    directory,
    cwd: process.cwd(),
    nodeEnv: process.env.NODE_ENV,
    stack,
  });

  await execFileAsync('git', ['init'], { cwd: directory });
}

Critical: Use console.error() in tests (not logger - may not show)

Run and capture:

npm test 2>&1 | grep 'DEBUG git init'

Analyze stack traces:

  • Look for test file names
  • Find the line number triggering the call
  • Identify the pattern (same test? same parameter?)

Finding Which Test Causes Pollution

If something appears during tests but you don't know which test:

Use the bisection script find-polluter.sh in this directory:

bash ./find-polluter.sh '.git' 'src/**/*.test.ts'

Runs tests one-by-one, stops at first polluter. See script for usage.

Real Example: Empty projectDir

Symptom: .git created in packages/core/ (source code)

Trace chain:

  1. git init runs in process.cwd() ← empty cwd parameter
  2. WorktreeManager called with empty projectDir
  3. Session.create() passed empty string
  4. Test accessed context.tempDir before beforeEach
  5. setupCoreTest() returns { tempDir: '' } initially

Root cause: Top-level variable initialization accessing empty value

Fix: Made tempDir a getter that throws if accessed before beforeEach

Also added defense-in-depth:

  • Layer 1: Project.create() validates directory
  • Layer 2: WorkspaceManager validates not empty
  • Layer 3: NODE_ENV guard refuses git init outside tmpdir
  • Layer 4: Stack trace logging before git init

Key Principle

digraph principle {
    "Found immediate cause" [shape=ellipse];
    "Can trace one level up?" [shape=diamond];
    "Trace backwards" [shape=box];
    "Is this the source?" [shape=diamond];
    "Fix at source" [shape=box];
    "Add validation at each layer" [shape=box];
    "Bug impossible" [shape=doublecircle];
    "NEVER fix just the symptom" [shape=octagon, style=filled, fillcolor=red, fontcolor=white];

    "Found immediate cause" -> "Can trace one level up?";
    "Can trace one level up?" -> "Trace backwards" [label="yes"];
    "Can trace one level up?" -> "NEVER fix just the symptom" [label="no"];
    "Trace backwards" -> "Is this the source?";
    "Is this the source?" -> "Trace backwards" [label="no - keeps going"];
    "Is this the source?" -> "Fix at source" [label="yes"];
    "Fix at source" -> "Add validation at each layer";
    "Add validation at each layer" -> "Bug impossible";
}

NEVER fix just where the error appears. Trace back to find the original trigger.

Stack Trace Tips

In tests: Use console.error() not logger - logger may be suppressed Before operation: Log before the dangerous operation, not after it fails Include context: Directory, cwd, environment variables, timestamps Capture stack: new Error().stack shows complete call chain

Real-World Impact

From debugging session (2025-10-03):

  • Found root cause through 5-level trace
  • Fixed at source (getter validation)
  • Added 4 layers of defense
  • 1847 tests passed, zero pollution

Source: SKILL.md on GitHub

skilld matched fixed text patterns in SKILL.md and file names. Patterns miss obfuscated code.

skilld run checks every file with the same patterns. It asks for approval before it loads a Skill with a behavior marked Needs approval.

1 warning3d5 checks · Risk MEDIUM
  • Gen Agent Trust Hub4d

    The skill provides debugging methodologies and a shell script for identifying problematic tests. A vulnerability in the shell script could allow for command injection if an untrusted search pattern is provided.

  • Socket3d

    No alerts

  • Snyk4d

    Risk: LOW · No issues

  • Runlayer8mo

    2/11 files flagged

  • ZeroLeaks6mo

    Score: 93/100 · 2 sections analyzed

Signed by skilld at 22f0b46. This ties the file your Agent reads to that commit on GitHub. It does not review the instructions.

Last checked against GitHub 5 days ago.

Activeupdated last month
  • Debugging
  • Testing
  • root-cause-analysis
  • troubleshooting
  • process
  • error-handling
  • verification
  • test-driven-development

README badge

README badge for obra/superpowers/systematic-debugging

Guides investigation of bugs, test failures, and unexpected behavior through four mandatory phases: root cause investigation, pattern analysis, hypothesis testing, and implementation. Emphasizes finding the actual source before attempting fixes, with explicit checks to stop and reassess if three fixes fail without resolution.

Generated from the current SKILL.md.

When should I use this debugging skill instead of just trying fixes?
Use it for any technical issue: test failures, bugs, performance problems, build failures. Especially critical when under time pressure, when you've already tried multiple fixes, or when the issue seems simple. Skipping it when rushing actually wastes more time than following the process.
What does 'root cause investigation' actually involve?
Read error messages completely, reproduce the issue consistently, check recent changes via git diff, and gather diagnostic evidence at component boundaries. For multi-layer systems, add logging at each boundary to show where data flow breaks before proposing any fix.
What should I do if I've tried 3 or more fixes and nothing works?
Stop attempting fixes and question the architecture instead. When multiple fixes each reveal new problems in different places, the issue is likely architectural rather than a simple bug. Discuss with your partner before attempting more fixes.
Do I need to write a test before fixing the bug?
Yes. Phase 4 requires creating a failing test case—automated if possible, otherwise a one-off script. The test must pass after your fix and serve as proof the issue is resolved.
What's the difference between fixing symptoms versus fixing root cause?
Symptom fixes mask the real problem and waste time. Root cause fixes prevent the issue from recurring. The process enforces finding root cause (where bad data originates) before any code changes.

Generated from the current SKILL.md. These answers refresh after source changes.