From process
Guides systematic root-cause debugging for bugs, test failures, build errors, and unexpected behavior. Triggers before proposing fixes to ensure investigation precedes solution attempts.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/process:debuggingThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Random fixes waste time and create new bugs. Quick patches mask underlying issues.
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.
Find the root cause before attempting fixes.
If you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.
Use for ANY technical issue:
Use this ESPECIALLY when:
Complete each phase before proceeding.
Before attempting a fix:
Read Error Messages Carefully
Reproduce Consistently
Check Recent Changes
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 ✗)
Trace Data Flow
WHEN error is deep in call stack:
Find the pattern before fixing:
Find Working Examples
Compare Against References
Identify Differences
Understand Dependencies
Scientific method:
Form Single Hypothesis
Test Minimally
Verify Before Continuing
When You Don't Know
Fix the root cause, not the symptom:
Create Failing Test Case
process:tdd skill for writing proper failing testsImplement Single Fix
Verify Fix
If Fix Doesn't Work
If 3+ Fixes Failed: Question Architecture
Pattern indicating architectural problem:
Question fundamentals:
Discuss with the user before attempting more fixes
This is NOT a failed hypothesis - this is a wrong architecture.
If you catch yourself thinking:
ALL of these mean: STOP. Return to Phase 1.
If 3+ fixes failed: Question the architecture (see Phase 4, Step 5)
If the user says any of the following, return to Phase 1:
| 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 |
If systematic investigation reveals issue is truly environmental, timing-dependent, or external:
But: 95% of "no root cause" cases are incomplete investigation.
Guides creation, editing, and verification of skills for AI coding agents using test-driven development with subagent scenarios. Use when authoring or debugging skills.
npx claudepluginhub n0k0/claude-plugins-backalley --plugin process