home / skills / ratacat / claude-skills / debugging
This skill helps you identify root causes through structured debugging, sequential thinking, and targeted research to fix issues efficiently.
npx playbooks add skill ratacat/claude-skills --skill debuggingReview the files below or copy the command above to add this skill to your agents.
---
name: debugging
description: Systematic debugging that identifies root causes rather than treating symptoms. Uses sequential thinking for complex analysis, web search for research, and structured investigation to avoid circular reasoning and whack-a-mole fixes.
---
# Debugging
## Quickstart
1. Capture exact repro, scope, and recent changes
2. Isolate components/files; trace path to failure
3. Research exact error; check official docs
4. Compare failing vs working patterns; form a testable hypothesis
5. Verify with minimal test; apply minimal fix across all instances; validate
## When to Use This Skill
Use debugging when:
- A bug has no obvious cause or has been "fixed" before but returned
- Error messages are unclear or misleading
- Multiple attempted fixes have failed
- The issue might affect multiple locations in the codebase
- Understanding the root cause is critical for proper resolution
Skip this skill for:
- Simple syntax errors with obvious fixes
- Trivial typos or missing imports
- Well-understood, isolated bugs with clear solutions
## Core Anti-Patterns to Avoid
Based on documented failures in AI debugging, explicitly avoid:
1. **Circular Reasoning**: Never propose the same fix twice without learning why it failed
2. **Premature Victory**: Always verify fixes were actually implemented and work
3. **Pattern Amnesia**: Maintain awareness of established code patterns throughout the session
4. **Context Overload**: Use the 50% rule - restart conversation when context reaches 50%
5. **Symptom Chasing**: Resist fixing error messages without understanding root causes
6. **Implementation Before Understanding**: Never jump to code changes before examining existing patterns
## UNDERSTAND (10-step checklist)
- Understand: capture exact repro, scope, and recent changes
- Narrow: isolate components/files; trace path to failure
- Discover: research exact error (WebSearch → Parallel Search, Context7:get-library-docs)
- Examine: compare against known-good patterns in the codebase
- Reason: use SequentialThinking:process_thought and 5 Whys to reach root cause
- Synthesize: write a falsifiable hypothesis with predictions
- Test: add logs/tests to confirm the mechanism
- Apply: minimal fix for root cause, across all occurrences, following patterns
- Note: record insights, warnings, decisions
- Document: update comments/docs/tests as needed
## Progress Tracking with TodoWrite
Use TodoWrite to track debugging progress through the UNDERSTAND checklist:
1. **At start**: Create todos for each applicable step:
```
☐ U - Capture exact repro and scope
☐ N - Isolate failing component
☐ D - Research error message
☐ E - Compare with working patterns
☐ R - Root cause analysis (5 Whys)
☐ S - Write falsifiable hypothesis
☐ T - Verify with minimal test
☐ A - Apply fix across all occurrences
☐ N - Record insights
☐ D - Update docs/tests
```
2. **During debugging**: Mark steps in_progress → completed as you work through them
3. **When stuck**: TodoWrite makes it visible which step is blocked - helps identify if you're skipping steps or going in circles
4. **Skip steps only if**: Bug is simple enough that checklist is overkill (see "Skip this skill for" above)
## Tool Decision Tree
- Know exact text/symbol? → grep
- Need conceptual/semantic location? → codebase_search
- Need full file context? → read_file
- Unfamiliar error/behavior? → Context7:get-library-docs, then WebSearch → Parallel Search
- Complex multi-hypothesis analysis? → SequentialThinking:process_thought
## Context Management
- Restart at ~50% context usage to avoid degraded reasoning
- Before restart: summarize facts, hypothesis, ruled-outs, next step
- Start a fresh chat with just that summary; continue
## Decision Framework
**IF** same fix proposed twice → Stop; use SequentialThinking:process_thought
**IF** error is unclear → Research via WebSearch → Parallel Search; verify with docs
**IF** area is unfamiliar → Explore with codebase_search; don't guess
**IF** fix seems too easy → Confirm it addresses root cause (not symptom)
**IF** context is cluttered → Restart at 50% with summary
**IF** multiple hypotheses exist → Evaluate explicitly (evidence for/against)
**IF** similar code works → Find and diff via codebase_search/read_file
**IF** declaring success → Show changed lines; test fail-before/pass-after
**IF** fix spans multiple files → Search and patch all occurrences
**IF** library behavior assumed → Check Context7:get-library-docs
## Quality Checks Before Finishing
Before declaring a bug fixed, verify:
- [ ] Root cause identified and documented
- [ ] Fix addresses cause, not symptom
- [ ] All occurrences fixed (searched project-wide)
- [ ] Follows existing code patterns
- [ ] Original symptom eliminated
- [ ] No regressions introduced
- [ ] Tests/logs verify under relevant conditions
- [ ] Docs/tests updated (comments, docs, regression tests)
## References
- `reference/root-cause-framework.md`
- `reference/antipatterns.md`
This skill provides a structured, root-cause focused debugging process that emphasizes sequential thinking, minimal fixes, and verification. It guides you from capturing exact repro steps through hypothesis, testing, and project-wide remediation. The goal is to eliminate whack-a-mole fixes and produce durable, well-documented resolutions.
It inspects failure paths by isolating components and tracing the exact execution that leads to the error, then researches exact error text against authoritative docs and web resources. It uses a 10-step UNDERSTAND checklist to form falsifiable hypotheses, verify them with minimal tests or logs, and apply minimal fixes consistently across the codebase. Progress is tracked with a TODO workflow so blocked steps are visible and circular reasoning is avoided.
When should I skip this systematic approach?
Skip it for trivial, obvious fixes like syntax errors, simple typos, or missing imports where the cause and remedy are immediate.
What if the same fix keeps being proposed?
Stop and run a sequential reasoning pass: re-examine assumptions, look for pattern differences, and expand searches to ensure you’re not treating a symptom.