ds-fix

Announce: "Using ds-fix for mid-analysis course correction."

Session Resume Detection

Before starting, check for an existing handoff:

1. Check if .planning/HANDOFF.md exists
2. If found: Read it and present to user:
   • Show the phase, task progress, and Next Action from the handoff
   • Ask: "Resume from handoff, or start fresh?"
   • If resume: skip to the recorded phase
   • If fresh: proceed with diagnosis
3. If not found: Proceed normally with Step 1 (Load Context)

Where This Fits

/ds (entry) → brainstorm → plan → implement → review → verify
                                    ↑
/ds-fix (midpoint) ─────────────────┘

This is the re-entry point. Jump back into a DS workflow that needs fixing.

## The Iron Law of DS Editing

DIAGNOSE BEFORE FIXING. This is not negotiable.

Before changing ANY analysis code, you MUST:

1. Load the workflow context
2. Identify WHAT is wrong (specific, not vague)
3. Identify WHY it's wrong (root cause)
4. Only THEN fix it (with output-first verification)

If you're about to change code without diagnosing first, STOP.

Fix Facts

• "The data probably changed" is a hypothesis, not a diagnosis — it is only established by comparing data profiles before/after: shape, dtypes, distributions, nulls.
• Parameter-tweaking until the error goes away is specification search applied to debugging. A fix whose mechanism you can't state is cosmetic — the bug returns in a different form.
• A traceback locates WHERE the pipeline failed, not WHY — the root cause is found by tracing backwards to the first divergence point, and if you don't know why it failed, a passing rerun tells you nothing about why it passed.

Step 1: Load Context

Read workflow state, shared enforcement, AND shared check definitions:

As the midpoint, auto-load ALL constraints matching applies-to: ds-fix (midpoint can route to any phase):

!uv run python3 ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../scripts/load-constraints.py ds-fix

You MUST have these constraints loaded before proceeding. No claiming you "remember" them.

Read(".planning/SPEC.md")
Read(".planning/PLAN.md")
Read(".planning/LEARNINGS.md")

Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../skills/ds-implement/references/ds-checks.md and follow its instructions.

The shared checks file contains data quality check definitions (DQ1-DQ6, M1, R1) used by both ds-review and ds-fix. Loading it here ensures the midpoint runs identical checks to the entry point's review phase. Without it, checks drift apart and the midpoint misses issues review would catch.

If no workflow state exists, suggest starting with /ds instead.

SAS Project Detection

After loading PLAN.md, check if Implementation Language is SAS or Mixed. If so, reload SAS enforcement before any fix:

Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../skills/wrds/references/sas-etl.md and follow its instructions.

SAS projects have unique failure modes (hash merge memory, WHERE function wrapping, SGE array misconfiguration). The SAS enforcement must be loaded BEFORE diagnosing — otherwise you will misdiagnose SAS-specific issues as generic bugs.

Context Monitoring

Before starting diagnosis, check context availability:

Level	Remaining Context	Action
Normal	>35%	Proceed with diagnosis and fix
Warning	25-35%	Complete current fix, then invoke ds-handoff
Critical	≤25%	Invoke ds-handoff immediately — no new fixes

At Warning level: After current fix completes, invoke: Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../skills/ds-handoff/SKILL.md and follow its instructions.

Why: A multi-step fix pipeline with 20% context remaining produces degraded output. Better to handoff cleanly and resume fresh.

Step 2: Diagnose

Identify the issue category:

Category	Symptoms	Route To
Runtime Error	Traceback, cell failure, import error	Debug Protocol
Wrong Results	Numbers don't match expectations, sanity checks fail	Re-analysis Protocol
Unclear Root Cause	3+ plausible explanations, mysterious data quality issues	Competing Hypothesis Investigation
Reviewer Feedback	Specific methodology concerns, requested changes	Revision Protocol
Data Change	New data available, source updated, schema changed	Re-profiling Protocol
Scope Change	New questions, expanded requirements	Spec Update → re-plan

Ask user if ambiguous:

AskUserQuestion(questions=[
  {
    "question": "What needs fixing in your analysis?",
    "header": "Issue type",
    "options": [
      {"label": "Runtime error", "description": "Code fails, traceback, import error"},
      {"label": "Wrong results", "description": "Numbers don't look right, sanity checks fail"},
      {"label": "Unclear root cause", "description": "Multiple plausible explanations, mysterious data quality"},
      {"label": "Reviewer feedback", "description": "Specific changes requested by reviewer"},
      {"label": "Data/scope change", "description": "New data, updated requirements, new questions"}
    ],
    "multiSelect": false
  }
])

Diagnostic Routing Flowchart

┌───────────────────────┐
│  Load Context (Step 1) │
│  SPEC + PLAN + LEARN   │
└───────────┬───────────┘
            ▼
┌───────────────────────┐
│  Identify Symptoms     │
│  (Step 2)              │
└───────────┬───────────┘
            ▼
     ┌──────┴──────┐
     │  Traceback?  │─── YES ──→ Debug Protocol
     └──────┬──────┘              (Runtime Error)
            │ NO
            ▼
     ┌──────────────┐
     │ Numbers wrong │─── YES ──→ Re-analysis Protocol
     │ or unexpected?│              (Trace backwards)
     └──────┬───────┘
            │ NO
            ▼
     ┌──────────────┐
     │ 3+ plausible │─── YES ──→ Competing Hypothesis
     │ explanations?│              (Parallel investigation)
     └──────┬───────┘
            │ NO
            ▼
     ┌──────────────┐
     │ Reviewer      │─── YES ──→ Revision Protocol
     │ feedback?     │              (Fix per feedback)
     └──────┬───────┘
            │ NO
            ▼
     ┌──────────────┐
     │ Data or scope │─── YES ──→ Re-profiling / Spec Update
     │ changed?      │
     └──────────────┘

This flowchart IS the diagnostic spec. If the category table and flowchart disagree, the flowchart wins.

Step 3: Fix by Category

Runtime Error → Debug Protocol

1. Identify the failing cell/script
2. Read the error traceback
3. Check LEARNINGS.md for prior context on this step
4. Fix with output-first verification:
   • Print state BEFORE the failing operation
   • Fix the operation
   • Print state AFTER
   • Verify output matches expectations from PLAN.md

For notebook-specific errors, load notebook-debug patterns:

Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../skills/notebook-debug/SKILL.md and follow its instructions.

Wrong Results → Re-analysis Protocol

**Trace backwards. Do NOT guess forward.**

The bug is at the FIRST step where output diverges from expected. Find that step.

1. Identify WHICH results are wrong
2. Trace backwards through the pipeline:
   • Check final output → is the aggregation wrong?
   • Check intermediate data → is the transformation wrong?
   • Check input data → is the loading/filtering wrong?
3. Find the FIRST step where output diverges from expected
4. Fix that step with output-first verification
5. Re-run downstream steps and verify

Reviewer Feedback → Revision Protocol

1. Document each piece of feedback as a task
2. For each task:
   • Locate the relevant code/output
   • Apply the change
   • Verify with output-first protocol
   • Document in LEARNINGS.md
3. After all changes, re-run review checks:

Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../skills/ds-review/SKILL.md and follow its instructions.

Data/Scope Change → Re-profiling Protocol

1. Profile the new data (shape, dtypes, distributions)
2. Compare to original data profile in LEARNINGS.md
3. Identify what changed (schema, volume, distributions)
4. Update PLAN.md if pipeline steps need changing
5. Re-run affected pipeline steps with output-first verification
6. Update LEARNINGS.md with new observations

Scope Change → Spec Update

If the question itself changed:

1. Update SPEC.md with new objectives
2. Review PLAN.md — which tasks are still valid?
3. Add new tasks for new objectives
4. Return to implement phase for new tasks

Unclear Root Cause → Competing Hypothesis Investigation

When 3+ plausible explanations exist, sequential investigation failed, or contradictory evidence is found, use the competing hypothesis protocol.

MANDATORY: Before proceeding, load the protocol:

Read("${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/competing-hypothesis.md")

Key steps:

1. Generate 3-5 competing hypotheses (Data Quality, Methodology, Implementation, Domain)
2. Spawn investigation team (one agent per hypothesis)
3. Scientific debate with cross-examination
4. Evidence synthesis with confidence scoring (≥90 to proceed)
5. Fix implementation via ds-delegate

Step 4: Verify Fix

After fixing, apply output-first verification:

1. Re-run the fixed step: verify output shape, sample, stats
2. Re-run downstream steps: verify no cascading issues
3. Check against SPEC.md success criteria
4. Update LEARNINGS.md with fix documentation

Gate: Fix Verification

Checkpoint type: human-verify (fix output is machine-verifiable)

Before claiming any fix is done, execute this gate:

1. IDENTIFY → What specific behavior was broken? (not vague — exact symptom)
2. RUN      → Execute the fixed code with output-first verification
3. READ     → Read the output: does it match SPEC.md success criteria?
4. VERIFY   → Re-run downstream steps — no cascading failures introduced
5. CLAIM    → Only declare "fix complete" if ALL gates pass

Skipping this gate means your fix is unverified. An unverified fix is not a fix — it's a guess.

No Pause Between Fixes

**After a fix passes the verification gate, IMMEDIATELY proceed to the next issue from Step 2's diagnosis. Do NOT pause to ask "should I continue?"**

Step 2's diagnosis IS the work-list — re-asking permission per item is stalling, and LEARNINGS.md is the summary (repeating it in chat wastes context). A verified fix means start the next one.

The fix loop runs until every issue in Step 2's diagnosis is resolved OR a STOP escalation (R4 / rethink) is required. Your pause is procrastination disguised as courtesy.

Post-Subagent Boundary

**After a fix agent returns, constraint C2 (Post-Subagent Boundary) from ds-common-constraints.md applies.**

ALLOWED: Read the agent's returned report. Check LEARNINGS.md. Confirm file existence with ls. FORBIDDEN: Read project source code, run analysis code, inspect data files, Grep/Glob project files.

If the fix looks incomplete, re-dispatch a Task agent. Do NOT investigate yourself.

Topic Change Protocol

If user sends an off-topic message during ds-fix, follow the Topic Change Protocol (constraints/ds-topic-change-protocol.md):

1. Announce: "Pausing ds-fix to address your request."
2. Handle the request.
3. Announce: "Resuming ds-fix. Reading state files for current progress."
4. Reload: Read .planning/SPEC.md, .planning/PLAN.md, .planning/LEARNINGS.md.
5. Resume from where you left off.

Delegation

Main chat orchestrates. Task agents do the fixing:

Task(subagent_type="general-purpose", prompt="""
Fix [SPECIFIC ISSUE] in the analysis.

Context:
- Read .planning/LEARNINGS.md for prior steps
- Read .planning/PLAN.md for task details
- Read .planning/SPEC.md for objectives

Fix Protocol:
1. Trace to root cause (do NOT guess)
2. Fix with output-first verification
3. Print state BEFORE and AFTER fix
4. Re-run downstream steps
5. Update LEARNINGS.md

Report: what was wrong, what was fixed, verification output.
""")

Delete & Restart Protocol

Fixing is delegation, not main-chat work. The same contamination rule as ds-implement applies — a fix written in the orchestrator's context skips output-first verification and must not be kept.

Scenario	Action
You wrote fix code (> 3 lines) directly in main chat	DELETE immediately. Re-dispatch a Task agent with the diagnosis.
You partially applied a fix in main chat before catching yourself	DELETE the changes. Re-dispatch with full context (don't leave a half-fix).
You ran a "quick" patch cell in the orchestrator notebook	DELETE the cell + output. Re-do via Task agent.
"It's a one-line fix, delegating is overkill"	STOP — a one-line fix is one line for the agent too. Delete and delegate.

Helpfulness Check: A fix that "works" but was written in the wrong place skipped verification and review. Working code in the wrong place is anti-helpful — delete it and re-dispatch.

When Fix Requires Rethinking

If the fix reveals the analysis approach is fundamentally wrong:

1. Document findings in LEARNINGS.md
2. Report to user: "The approach needs rethinking because [specific reason]"
3. Suggest returning to /ds for re-planning

Don't try to salvage a broken approach with patches. A fresh plan costs less than cascading fixes.