All skills
wshobson avatar

/parallel-debugging

@a5ab5d8
by Seth Hobsonwshobson/agents40k stars
4,281

Debug complex issues using competing hypotheses with parallel investigation, evidence collection, and root cause arbitration. Use this skill when debugging bugs with multiple potential causes, performing root cause analysis, or organizing parallel investigation workflows.

Use this Skill: https://skilld.dev/gh/wshobson/agents/parallel-debugging

This session only. Nothing lands on disk.

referenceshypothesis-testing.md

≈822 tokens on demand. Your agent reads this file only when SKILL.md points to it.

Hypothesis Testing Reference

Task templates, evidence formats, and arbitration decision trees for parallel debugging.

Hypothesis Task Template

## Hypothesis Investigation: {Hypothesis Title}

### Hypothesis Statement

{Clear, falsifiable statement about the root cause}

### Failure Mode Category

{Logic Error | Data Issue | State Problem | Integration Failure | Resource Issue | Environment}

### Investigation Scope

- Files to examine: {file list or directory}
- Related tests: {test files}
- Git history: {relevant date range or commits}

### Evidence Criteria

**Confirming evidence** (if I find these, hypothesis is supported):

1. {Observable condition 1}
2. {Observable condition 2}

**Falsifying evidence** (if I find these, hypothesis is wrong):

1. {Observable condition 1}
2. {Observable condition 2}

### Report Format

- Confidence: High/Medium/Low
- Evidence: list with file:line citations
- Causal chain: step-by-step from cause to symptom
- Recommended fix: if confirmed

Evidence Report Template

## Investigation Report: {Hypothesis Title}

### Verdict: {Confirmed | Falsified | Inconclusive}

### Confidence: {High (>80%) | Medium (50-80%) | Low (<50%)}

### Confirming Evidence

1. `src/api/users.ts:47` — {description of what was found}
2. `src/middleware/auth.ts:23` — {description}

### Contradicting Evidence

1. `tests/api/users.test.ts:112` — {description of what contradicts}

### Causal Chain (if confirmed)

1. {First cause} →
2. {Intermediate effect} →
3. {Observable symptom}

### Recommended Fix

{Specific code change with location}

### Additional Notes

{Anything discovered that may be relevant to other hypotheses}

Arbitration Decision Tree

All investigators reported?
├── NO → Wait for remaining reports
└── YES → Count confirmed hypotheses
          ├── 0 confirmed
          │   ├── Any medium confidence? → Investigate further
          │   └── All low/falsified? → Generate new hypotheses
          ├── 1 confirmed
          │   └── High confidence?
          │       ├── YES → Declare root cause, propose fix
          │       └── NO → Flag as likely cause, recommend verification
          └── 2+ confirmed
              └── Are they related?
                  ├── YES → Compound issue (multiple contributing causes)
                  └── NO → Rank by confidence, declare highest as primary

Common Hypothesis Patterns by Error Type

"500 Internal Server Error"

  1. Unhandled exception in request handler (Logic Error)
  2. Database connection failure (Resource Issue)
  3. Missing environment variable (Environment)

"Race condition / intermittent failure"

  1. Shared state mutation without locking (State Problem)
  2. Async operation ordering assumption (Logic Error)
  3. Cache staleness window (State Problem)

"Works locally, fails in production"

  1. Environment variable mismatch (Environment)
  2. Different dependency version (Environment)
  3. Resource limits (memory, connections) (Resource Issue)

"Regression after deploy"

  1. New code introduced bug (Logic Error)
  2. Configuration change (Integration Failure)
  3. Database migration issue (Data Issue)

Source: SKILL.md on GitHub

No alerts16d5 checks · Risk SAFE
  • Gen Agent Trust Hub16d

    The skill provides a safe, structured framework for parallel debugging and root cause analysis using the Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) methodology. It consists entirely of documentation and templates with no executable code or external dependencies.

  • Socket16d

    No alerts

  • Snyk16d

    Risk: LOW · No issues

  • Runlayer7mo

    2 files scanned · No issues

  • ZeroLeaks5mo

    Score: 93/100 · 2 sections analyzed

Signed by skilld at a5ab5d8. This ties the file your Agent reads to that commit on GitHub. It does not review the instructions.

Last checked against GitHub 3 days ago.

Activeupdated 8 months ago
version
1.0.2
  • Debugging
  • root-cause-analysis
  • hypothesis-testing
  • troubleshooting
  • ach
  • parallel-investigation
  • bug-analysis
  • evidence-collection

README badge

README badge for wshobson/agents/parallel-debugging

Organizes parallel investigation of bugs with multiple potential causes using the Analysis of Competing Hypotheses methodology, with structured hypothesis categories, evidence collection standards, and root cause arbitration. Useful for debugging issues spanning multiple modules or when initial attempts haven't identified the problem.

Generated from the current SKILL.md.

How does this skill differ from standard debugging workflows?
It uses the Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) methodology to systematically generate and test multiple root cause candidates in parallel, rather than pursuing a single suspected cause. This reduces confirmation bias and works well for bugs with unclear origins across multiple modules.
What types of bugs is this skill best for?
Bugs with multiple plausible root causes, issues spanning multiple components or modules, and cases where initial debugging attempts haven't identified the problem. It's less useful for straightforward bugs with an obvious cause.
Do I need to generate hypotheses myself?
No. The skill provides a structured framework with 6 failure mode categories (logic error, data issue, state problem, integration failure, resource issue, environment) to guide hypothesis generation systematically.
How does the skill handle evidence that contradicts a hypothesis?
It evaluates evidence strength (direct, correlational, testimonial, absence) and requires clear citations with file:line references. Contradicting evidence lowers hypothesis confidence or falsifies it during result arbitration.
What if multiple hypotheses are confirmed?
The skill ranks confirmed hypotheses by confidence level, number of supporting evidence pieces, strength of causal chain, and absence of contradicting evidence. Multiple confirmed hypotheses may indicate a compound issue with multiple contributing causes.

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