🐛
체계적인 디버깅

체계적인 디버깅

복잡한 코드 오류를 식별하고 수정하기 위해 체계적인 접근 방식을 사용합니다.

PROMPT EXAMPLE
코드 문제를 해결하려면 `systematic-debugging`을 사용하세요.
Fast Processing
High Quality
Privacy Protected

SKILL.md Definition

Systematic Debugging

Overview

Random fixes waste time and create new bugs. Quick patches mask underlying issues.

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 FIRST

If 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:

  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 → 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 → 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 component
    

    Example (multi-layer system):

    # Layer 1: Workflow
    echo "=== Secrets available in workflow: ==="
    echo "IDENTITY: ${IDENTITY:+SET}${IDENTITY:-UNSET}"
    
    # Layer 2: Build script
    echo "=== Env vars in build script: ==="
    env | grep IDENTITY || 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 ✗)

  5. 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:

  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 → 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 superpowers:test-driven-development 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 ≥ 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 your human partner before attempting more fixes

    This is NOT a failed hypothesis - this is a wrong architecture.

Red Flags - STOP and Follow Process

If you catch yourself thinking:

  • "Quick fix for now, investigate later"
  • "Just try changing X and see if it works"
  • "Add multiple changes, run tests"
  • "Skip the test, I'll manually verify"
  • "It's probably X, let me fix that"
  • "I don't fully understand but this might work"
  • "Pattern says X but I'll adapt it differently"
  • "Here are the main problems: [lists fixes without investigation]"
  • Proposing solutions before tracing data flow
  • "One more fix attempt" (when already tried 2+)
  • Each fix reveals new problem in different place

ALL of these mean: STOP. Return to Phase 1.

If 3+ fixes failed: Question the architecture (see Phase 4.5)

your human partner's Signals You're Doing It Wrong

Watch for these redirections:

  • "Is that not happening?" - You assumed without verifying
  • "Will it show us...?" - You should have added evidence gathering
  • "Stop guessing" - You're proposing fixes without understanding
  • "Ultrathink this" - Question fundamentals, not just symptoms
  • "We're stuck?" (frustrated) - Your approach isn't working

When you see these: STOP. Return to Phase 1.

Common Rationalizations

Excuse Reality
"Issue is simple, don't need process" Simple issues have root causes too. Process is fast for simple bugs.
"Emergency, no time for process" Systematic debugging is FASTER than guess-and-check thrashing.
"Just try this first, then investigate" First fix sets the pattern. Do it right from the start.
"I'll write test after confirming fix works" Untested fixes don't stick. Test first proves it.
"Multiple fixes at once saves time" Can't isolate what worked. Causes new bugs.
"Reference too long, I'll adapt the pattern" Partial understanding guarantees bugs. Read it completely.
"I see the problem, let me fix it" Seeing symptoms ≠ understanding root cause.
"One more fix attempt" (after 2+ failures) 3+ failures = architectural problem. Question pattern, don't fix again.

Quick Reference

Phase Key Activities Success Criteria
1. Root Cause Read errors, reproduce, check changes, gather evidence Understand WHAT and WHY
2. Pattern Find working examples, compare Identify differences
3. Hypothesis Form theory, test minimally Confirmed or new hypothesis
4. Implementation Create test, fix, verify Bug resolved, tests pass

When Process Reveals "No Root Cause"

If systematic investigation reveals issue is truly environmental, timing-dependent, or external:

  1. You've completed the process
  2. Document what you investigated
  3. Implement appropriate handling (retry, timeout, error message)
  4. Add monitoring/logging for future investigation

But: 95% of "no root cause" cases are incomplete investigation.

Supporting Techniques

These techniques are part of systematic debugging and available in this directory:

  • root-cause-tracing.md - Trace bugs backward through call stack to find original trigger
  • defense-in-depth.md - Add validation at multiple layers after finding root cause
  • condition-based-waiting.md - Replace arbitrary timeouts with condition polling

Related skills:

  • superpowers:test-driven-development - For creating failing test case (Phase 4, Step 1)
  • superpowers:verification-before-completion - Verify fix worked before claiming success

Real-World Impact

From debugging sessions:

  • Systematic approach: 15-30 minutes to fix
  • Random fixes approach: 2-3 hours of thrashing
  • First-time fix rate: 95% vs 40%
  • New bugs introduced: Near zero vs common

About Superpowers

Superpowers is a complete software development workflow for your coding agents, built on top of a set of composable "skills".

Philosophy

  • Test-Driven Development - Write tests first, always
  • Systematic over ad-hoc - Process over guessing
  • Complexity reduction - Simplicity as primary goal
  • Evidence over claims - Verify before declaring success

Installation

Note: Installation differs by platform. Claude Code has a built-in plugin system. Codex and OpenCode require manual setup.

Claude Code (via Plugin Marketplace)

In Claude Code, register the marketplace first:

/plugin marketplace add obra/superpowers-marketplace

Then install the plugin from this marketplace:

/plugin install superpowers@superpowers-marketplace

Verify Installation

Check that commands appear:

/help
# Should see:
# /superpowers:brainstorm - Interactive design refinement
# /superpowers:write-plan - Create implementation plan
# /superpowers:execute-plan - Execute plan in batches

강력한 Agent Skills

전문적인 스킬 컬렉션으로 AI 성능을 높이세요.

즉시 사용 가능

스킬을 지원하는 모든 에이전트 시스템에 복사하여 붙여넣으세요.

모듈형 디자인

'code skills'를 조합하여 복잡한 에이전트 동작을 만드세요.

최적화됨

각 'agent skill'은 높은 성능과 정확도를 위해 튜닝되었습니다.

오픈 소스

모든 'code skills'는 기여와 커스터마이징을 위해 열려 있습니다.

교차 플랫폼

다양한 LLM 및 에이전트 프레임워크와 호환됩니다.

안전 및 보안

AI 안전 베스트 프랙티스를 따르는 검증된 스킬입니다.

에이전트에게 힘을 실어주세요

오늘 Agiskills를 시작하고 차이를 경험해 보세요.

지금 탐색

사용 방법

간단한 3단계로 에이전트 스킬을 시작하세요.

1

스킬 선택

컬렉션에서 필요한 스킬을 찾습니다.

2

문서 읽기

스킬의 작동 방식과 제약 조건을 이해합니다.

3

복사 및 사용

정의를 에이전트 설정에 붙여넣습니다.

4

테스트

결과를 확인하고 필요에 따라 세부 조정합니다.

5

배포

특화된 AI 에이전트를 배포합니다.

개발자 한마디

전 세계 개발자들이 Agiskills를 선택하는 이유를 확인하세요.

Alex Smith

AI 엔지니어

"Agiskills는 제가 AI 에이전트를 구축하는 방식을 완전히 바꾸어 놓았습니다."

Maria Garcia

프로덕트 매니저

"PDF 전문가 스킬이 복잡한 문서 파싱 문제를 해결해 주었습니다."

John Doe

개발자

"전문적이고 문서화가 잘 된 스킬들입니다. 강력히 추천합니다!"

Sarah Lee

아티스트

"알고리즘 아트 스킬은 정말 아름다운 코드를 생성합니다."

Chen Wei

프론트엔드 전문가

"테마 팩토리로 생성된 테마는 픽셀 단위까지 완벽합니다."

Robert T.

CTO

"저희 AI 팀의 표준으로 Agiskills를 사용하고 있습니다."

자주 묻는 질문

Agiskills에 대해 궁금한 모든 것.

네, 모든 공개 스킬은 무료로 복사하여 사용할 수 있습니다.

피드백