Imported from majiayu000/claude-skill-registry (skills/testing/bug-killer-sequenzia-agent-alchemy-7/SKILL.md). Install upstream with npx skills add majiayu000/claude-skill-registry --skill bug-killer-sequenzia-agent-alchemy-7. Copyright stays with the author.

Bug Killer -- Hypothesis-Driven Debugging Workflow

Execute a systematic debugging workflow that enforces investigation before fixes. Every bug gets a hypothesis journal, evidence gathering, and root cause confirmation before any code changes.

Phase Overview

1. Triage & Reproduction -- Understand, reproduce, route to quick or deep track
2. Investigation -- Gather evidence with language-specific techniques
3. Root Cause Analysis -- Confirm root cause through hypothesis testing
4. Fix & Verify -- Fix with proof, regression test, quality check
5. Wrap-up & Report -- Document trail, capture learnings

Phase 1: Triage & Reproduction

Goal: Understand the bug, reproduce it, and decide the investigation track.

1.1 Parse Context

Extract from $ARGUMENTS and conversation context:

• Bug description: What's failing? Error messages, symptoms
• Reproduction steps: How to trigger the bug (test command, user action, etc.)
• Environment: Language, framework, test runner, relevant config
• Prior attempts: Has the user already tried fixes? What didn't work?
• Deep flag: If --deep is present, skip triage and go directly to deep track (jump to Phase 2 deep track)

1.2 Reproduce the Bug

Attempt to reproduce before investigating:

1. If a failing test was mentioned, run it:

   # Run the specific test to confirm the failure
   <test-runner> <test-file>::<test-name>

2. If an error was described, find and trigger it
3. If neither, search for related test files and run them

Capture the exact error output -- this is your primary evidence.

If the bug cannot be reproduced:

• Ask the user for more context
• Check if it's environment-specific or intermittent
• Note "not yet reproduced" in the hypothesis journal

1.3 Form Initial Hypothesis

Based on the error message and context, form your first hypothesis:

### H1: [Title]
- Hypothesis: [What you think is causing the bug]
- Evidence for: [What supports this — error message, stack trace, etc.]
- Evidence against: [Anything that contradicts it — if none yet, say "None yet"]
- Test plan: [Specific steps to confirm or reject]
- Status: Pending

1.4 Route to Track

Quick-fix signals (ALL must be true):

• Clear, specific error message pointing to exact location
• Localized to 1-2 files (not spread across the codebase)
• Obvious fix visible from reading the error location
• No concurrency, timing, or state management involved

Deep-track signals (ANY one triggers deep track):

• Bug spans 3+ files or modules
• Root cause unclear from the error message alone
• Intermittent or environment-dependent failure
• Involves concurrency, timing, shared state, or async behavior
• User already tried fixes that didn't work
• Generic error message (e.g., "null reference" without clear origin)
• Stack trace points to library/framework code rather than application code

Present your assessment to the user:

• Summarize the bug and your initial hypothesis
• Recommend quick or deep track with justification
• Options: "Quick track (Recommended)" / "Deep track" or vice versa depending on your assessment
• Let the user override your recommendation

Track escalation rule: If during quick track execution, 2 hypotheses are rejected, automatically escalate to deep track. Preserve all hypothesis journal entries when escalating.

Phase 2: Investigation

Goal: Gather evidence systematically, guided by language-specific techniques.

2.1 Load Language Reference

Detect the primary language of the bug's context and load the appropriate reference:

Always also apply general debugging techniques as a supplement when using a language-specific reference.

General Debugging Techniques

Systematic Methods:

• Binary Search for Bugs -- Narrow the problem space by half at each step: identify the full code path, place a diagnostic check at the midpoint, determine which half contains the bug, repeat
• Git Bisect -- Automate binary search through commit history when you know "it used to work"
• Delta Debugging -- Minimize the input that triggers the bug by progressively removing halves
• 5 Whys -- Drill past symptoms to root causes by asking "why?" iteratively until you reach something directly fixable

Reading Stack Traces:

What stack traces cannot tell you:

• Why the wrong value got there (trace backwards)
• When the state became corrupted (may have happened earlier)
• Where in async code the real problem is (async gaps)

Bug Categories:

• Off-by-One -- Check < vs <=, 0-based vs 1-based, inclusive vs exclusive ranges
• Null/Undefined/None -- Uninitialized variables, missing return values, optional fields without guards
• Race Conditions -- Shared mutable state, missing locks, read-then-write without atomicity
• Resource Leaks -- File handles not closed, connections not returned, event listeners not removed
• State Corruption -- Mutation of shared objects, missing deep copies, partial updates

Diagnostic Logging Strategy: Log at decision points and data boundaries:

[ENTRY] function_name called with: key_arg=value
[BRANCH] taking path X because condition=value
[DATA] received from external: summary_of_data
[EXIT] function_name returning: summary_of_result

Investigation Checklist: Before proposing a fix, verify you can answer:

• Can you reproduce the bug reliably?
• What is the expected vs actual behavior?
• Have you identified the specific line(s) causing the issue?
• Do you understand WHY those lines produce the wrong result?
• Is this the root cause, or a symptom of a deeper issue?
• Could this same root cause affect other code paths?

2.2 Quick Track Investigation

For quick-track bugs, investigate directly:

1. Read the error location -- the file and function where the error occurs
2. Read the immediate callers -- 1-2 files up the call chain
3. Check recent changes -- git log --oneline -5 -- <file> for the affected files
4. Update hypothesis -- does the evidence support H1? Add evidence for/against

Proceed to Phase 3 (quick track).

2.3 Deep Track Investigation

For deep-track bugs, use parallel exploration agents:

1. Plan exploration areas -- identify 2-3 focus areas based on the bug:

   • Focus 1: The error site and immediate code path
   • Focus 2: Data flow and state management leading to the error
   • Focus 3: Related subsystems, configuration, or external dependencies

2. Launch exploration agents:

   Spawn 2-3 read-only exploration agents (refer to the code-explorer agent from the core-tools package):

   Each agent receives:

   • Bug context: description of the bug and error
   • Focus area: specific area for that agent
   • Instructions to find all relevant files, trace execution/data paths, identify where behavior diverges from expected, note suspicious patterns or recent changes, and report structured findings

   Launch agents in parallel for independent focus areas.

3. Synthesize exploration results:

   • Collect findings from all agents
   • Identify convergence (multiple agents pointing to same area)
   • Update hypothesis journal with new evidence
   • Form additional hypotheses if evidence warrants (aim for 2-3 total)

Proceed to Phase 3 (deep track).

Phase 3: Root Cause Analysis

Goal: Confirm the root cause through systematic hypothesis testing.

3.1 Quick Track Root Cause

For quick-track bugs:

1. Verify the hypothesis:

   • Read the specific code identified in Phase 2
   • Trace the logic step-by-step
   • Confirm that the hypothesized cause produces the observed error

2. If confirmed (Status -> Confirmed):

   • Update H1 with confirming evidence
   • Proceed to Phase 4

3. If rejected (Status -> Rejected):

   • Update H1 with evidence against and reason for rejection
   • Form a new hypothesis (H2) based on what you learned
   • Investigate H2 following Phase 2 quick track steps
   • If H2 is also rejected -> escalate to deep track
   • Preserve all journal entries, continue with Phase 2 deep track

3.2 Deep Track Root Cause

For deep-track bugs:

1. Prepare hypotheses for testing:

   • You should have 2-3 hypotheses from Phase 2
   • Each needs a concrete test plan (how to confirm or reject)

2. Launch bug-investigator agents:

   Spawn 1-3 bug-investigator agents to test hypotheses in parallel:

   Each agent receives:

   • Bug context: description of the bug and error
   • Hypothesis to test: specific hypothesis
   • Test plan with concrete steps (e.g., run a specific test, check git blame, trace data from input to error site)
   • Instructions to report findings with verdict (confirmed/rejected/inconclusive), evidence, and recommendations

   Launch agents in parallel when they test independent hypotheses.

3. Evaluate results:

   • Update hypothesis journal with each agent's findings

   • If one hypothesis is confirmed -> proceed to Phase 4

   • If all are rejected/inconclusive -> apply 5 Whys technique:

     Take the strongest "inconclusive" finding and ask "why?" iteratively:

     Observed: [what actually happens]
     Why? -> [first-level cause]
     Why? -> [second-level cause]
     Why? -> [root cause]
     

   • Form new hypotheses from 5 Whys analysis and repeat investigation

4. If stuck after 2 rounds of investigation:

   • Present all findings to the user
   • Share the hypothesis journal
   • Ask for additional context or direction
   • Options: "Continue investigating", "Try a different angle", "Provide more context"

Phase 4: Fix & Verify

Goal: Fix the root cause and prove the fix works.

4.1 Design the Fix

Before writing any code:

1. Explain the root cause -- state clearly what's wrong and why
2. Explain the fix -- describe what will change and WHY it addresses the root cause
3. Identify affected files -- list every file that needs modification
4. Consider side effects -- could this fix break other behavior?

4.2 Implement the Fix

1. Read all files that will be modified before making changes
2. Apply the fix -- minimal, focused changes
3. Match existing patterns -- follow the codebase's conventions

4.3 Run Tests

1. Run the originally failing test -- it should now pass:

   <test-runner> <test-file>::<test-name>

2. Run related tests -- tests in the same file and nearby test files:

   <test-runner> <test-directory>

3. If tests fail:

   • Determine if the failure is related to the fix or pre-existing
   • If related, revise the fix (do NOT revert to a different approach without updating the hypothesis journal)
   • If pre-existing, note it but don't let it block the fix

4.4 Write Regression Test

Write a test that would have caught this bug:

1. The test should fail WITHOUT the fix (verifying it tests the right thing)
2. The test should pass WITH the fix
3. The test should be minimal -- test the specific behavior that was broken
4. Place it in the appropriate test file following project conventions

4.5 Deep Track: Quality Check and Related Issues

Deep track only -- skip on quick track.

1. Review the fix against code quality principles: Refer to the code-quality skill for review criteria.

2. Check for related issues:

   • Search for the same pattern elsewhere in the codebase
   • If the same bug exists in other locations, report them to the user
   • Prompt the user: "Fix all related instances now?" / "Fix only the reported bug" / "Create tasks for related fixes"

Phase 5: Wrap-up & Report

Goal: Document the investigation trail and capture learnings.

5.1 Bug Fix Summary

Present to the user:

## Bug Fix Summary

### Bug
[One-line description of the bug]

### Root Cause
[What was actually wrong and why]

### Fix Applied
[What was changed, with file:line references]

### Tests
- [Originally failing test]: Now passing
- [Regression test added]: [test name and location]
- [Related tests]: All passing

### Track
[Quick / Deep] [Escalated from quick: Yes/No]

5.2 Hypothesis Journal Recap

Present the complete hypothesis journal showing the investigation trail:

### Investigation Trail

#### H1: [Title]
- Status: Confirmed / Rejected
- [Key evidence summary]

#### H2: [Title] (if applicable)
- Status: Confirmed / Rejected
- [Key evidence summary]

[... additional hypotheses ...]

5.3 Project Learnings

Refer to the project-learnings skill to evaluate whether this bug reveals project-specific knowledge worth capturing.

Follow its workflow to evaluate the finding. Common debugging discoveries that qualify:

• Surprising API behavior specific to this project
• Undocumented conventions that caused the bug
• Architectural constraints that aren't obvious from the code

5.4 Deep Track: Future Recommendations

Deep track only:

If the investigation revealed broader concerns, present recommendations:

• Architecture improvements to prevent similar bugs
• Missing test coverage areas
• Documentation gaps
• Monitoring or alerting suggestions

5.5 Next Steps

Prompt the user with options:

• "Commit the fix" -- proceed to commit workflow
• "Review the changes" -- show a diff of all modifications
• "Run full test suite" -- run the complete test suite to verify no regressions
• "Done" -- wrap up the session

Hypothesis Journal

The hypothesis journal is the core artifact of this workflow. Maintain it throughout all phases.

Format

## Hypothesis Journal -- [Bug Title]

### H1: [Descriptive Title]
- **Hypothesis:** [What's causing the bug — be specific]
- **Evidence for:** [Supporting observations with file:line references]
- **Evidence against:** [Contradicting observations]
- **Test plan:** [Concrete steps to confirm or reject]
- **Status:** Pending / Confirmed / Rejected
- **Notes:** [Additional context, timestamps, agent findings]

### H2: [Descriptive Title]
[Same format]

Rules

• Minimum hypotheses: 1 on quick track, 2-3 on deep track
• Never delete entries -- rejected hypotheses are valuable context
• Update incrementally -- add evidence as you find it, don't wait
• Be specific -- "the data is wrong" is not a hypothesis; "processOrder receives dollars but expects cents" is

Track Reference

Agent Coordination

Exploration Agents (Phase 2, deep track)

These are read-only agents that explore codebase areas. Refer to the code-explorer agent (from the core-tools package) for this role. Give each a distinct focus area related to the bug. They report structured findings.

Bug Investigators (Phase 3, deep track)

Bug-investigator agents have shell access for running tests and git commands, but no file-write access -- they investigate and report evidence, they don't fix code. Give each a specific hypothesis to test.

Error Handling

• If an agent fails, continue with remaining agents' results
• If all agents fail in a phase, fall back to manual investigation
• Never block on a single agent -- partial results are better than no results

Error Recovery

If any phase fails:

1. Explain what went wrong and what you've learned so far
2. Present the hypothesis journal as-is
3. Ask the user how to proceed:
   • "Retry this phase"
   • "Skip to fix" (if you have enough evidence)
   • "Provide more context"
   • "Abort"

Integration Notes

What this component does: Provides a systematic, hypothesis-driven debugging workflow with triage-based routing (quick vs deep track), parallel agent investigation, regression testing, and project learning capture. Capabilities needed: Shell execution (test runners, git commands), file reading/writing/editing, pattern search, sub-agent spawning (code-explorer from core-tools, bug-investigator), user interaction. Adaptation guidance: The quick track is a single-agent workflow; the deep track requires spawning parallel sub-agents for exploration and hypothesis testing. Adapt agent spawning to your platform's sub-task mechanism. Language-specific debugging references are in references/. Sub-agent capabilities: Code-explorer agents (from core-tools) need read-only file access and search. Bug-investigator agents need read-only file access, search, and shell execution (for running tests and git commands) but no file-write access.