systematic-debugging skill
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes
Is the systematic-debugging skill safe?
Clean: nothing in its files matched our rules. We read 6 files in the folder on 2026-11-04.
No findings.
Install the systematic-debugging skill
A skill is a folder. Copy it into your agent's skills folder and the agent loads it when the task matches its description.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/obra/superpowers.git /tmp/superpowers mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills cp -r /tmp/superpowers/skills/systematic-debugging ~/.claude/skills/systematic-debugging
In the Claude apps, zip the folder and upload it from the Skills settings. The folder on GitHub
The instructions your agent would load
SKILL.md as published, without the frontmatter. Read it on GitHub
Systematic Debugging
Overview
Core principle: ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes. Symptom fixes are failure.
Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of debugging.
The Iron Law
NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRSTIf you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.
When to Use
Use for ANY technical issue:
- Test failures
- Bugs in production
- Unexpected behavior
- Performance problems
- Build failures
- Integration issues
Use this 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 (rushing guarantees rework)
- Manager wants it fixed NOW (systematic is faster than thrashing)
The Four Phases
You MUST complete each phase before proceeding to the next.
Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation
BEFORE attempting ANY fix:
- 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
- Reproduce Consistently
- Can you trigger it reliably?
- What are the exact steps?
- Does it happen every time?
- If not reproducible → gather more data, don't guess
- Check Recent Changes
- What changed that could cause this?
- Git diff, recent commits
- New dependencies, config changes
- Environmental differences
- Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems
WHEN system has multiple components (CI → build → signing, API → service → 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 componentExample (multi-layer system):
# Layer 1: Workflow
echo "=== Secrets available in workflow: ==="
echo "IDENTITY: $([ -n "${IDENTITY:-}" ] && echo SET || echo UNSET)"
# Layer 2: Build script
echo "=== Env vars in build script: ==="
printenv IDENTITY >/dev/null 2>&1 && echo "IDENTITY in environment" || echo "IDENTITY not in environment"
# Layer 3: Signing script
echo "=== Keychain state: ==="
security list-keychains
security find-identity -v
# Layer 4: Actual signing
codesign --sign "$IDENTITY" --verbose=4 "$APP"This reveals: Which layer fails (secrets → workflow ✓, workflow → build ✗)
- Trace Data Flow
WHEN error is deep in call stack:
See root-cause-tracing.md in this directory 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:
- Find Working Examples
- Locate similar working code in same codebase
- What works that's similar to what's broken?
- Compare Against References
- If implementing pattern, read reference implementation COMPLETELY
- Don't skim - read every line
- Understand the pattern fully before applying
- Identify Differences
- What's different between working and broken?
- List every difference, however small
- Don't assume "that can't matter"
- Understand Dependencies
- What other components does this need?
- What settings, config, environment?
- What assumptions does it make?
Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing
Scientific method:
- Form Single Hypothesis
- State clearly: "I think X is the root cause because Y"
- Write it down
- Be specific, not vague
- Test Minimally
- Make the SMALLEST possible change to test hypothesis
- One variable at a time
- Don't fix multiple things at once
- Verify Before Continuing
- Did it work? Yes → Phase 4
- Didn't work? Form NEW hypothesis
- DON'T add more fixes on top
- 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:
- Create Failing Test Case
- Simplest possible reproduction
- Automated test if possible
- One-off test script if no framework
- MUST have before fixing
- Use the superpowers:test-driven-development skill for writing proper failing tests
More skills from obra/superpowers
- AbrainstormingYou MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, modifying behavior, or planning anything new, in software or out of it (a talk, a business, a renovation).
- Adiagnosing-superpowersUse when a superpowers session went wrong and your human partner wants to know why — repeated work, ignored plans, stumbles, poor results, a skill that didn't fire, "it took too long", "why is it so expensive", "what is it doing" — or wants to build a bug report for the superpowers maintainers, for the current session or a past one identified by id or path, on any harness.
- Adispatching-parallel-agentsUse when facing 2+ independent tasks that can be worked on without shared state or sequential dependencies
- Aexecuting-plansUse when executing an implementation plan in the current session as the implementer yourself — your human partner chose inline execution, or no subagent tool is available
- Afinishing-a-development-branchUse when implementation is complete, all tests pass, and you need to decide how to integrate the work
- Areceiving-code-reviewUse when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
- Arequesting-code-reviewUse when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements
- Asubagent-driven-developmentUse when executing implementation plans with independent tasks in the current session
- Atest-driven-developmentUse when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code
- Ausing-git-worktreesUse when starting feature work that needs isolation from current workspace or before executing implementation plans - ensures an isolated workspace exists via native tools or git worktree fallback
- Ausing-superpowersUse when starting any conversation - establishes how to find and use skills, requiring skill invocation before ANY response including clarifying questions
- Averification-before-completionUse when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs - requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims; evidence before assertions always