systematic-debugging

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.

When to Use

Use for ANY technical issue: test failures, unexpected behavior, pipeline errors, build failures, Galaxy workflow errors, notebook exceptions, environment issues.

Use ESPECIALLY when:

• "Just one quick fix" seems obvious
• You've already tried multiple fixes
• Previous fix didn't work
• You don't fully understand the issue

Supporting Files

• root-cause-tracing.md - Trace bugs backward through call chain to find the original trigger. Instrumentation techniques, stack trace analysis.
• defense-in-depth.md - Add validation at multiple layers after finding root cause. Entry point, business logic, environment guards, debug logging.

The Four Phases

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 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?
   • If not reproducible, gather more data — don't guess

3. Check recent changes

   • Git diff, recent commits, new dependencies
   • Config changes, environmental differences

4. Gather evidence in multi-component systems

   • For pipelines (Galaxy workflow → tool → data), log what enters and exits each component
   • Run once with diagnostics to see WHERE it breaks
   • Then investigate that specific component

5. Trace data flow

   • Where does the bad value originate? (See root-cause-tracing.md)
   • Keep tracing up the call chain until you find the source
   • Fix at source, not at symptom

Phase 2: Pattern Analysis

1. Find working examples — similar working code in same codebase
2. Compare against references — read reference implementation completely, don't skim
3. Identify differences — list every difference, however small
4. Understand dependencies — settings, config, environment, assumptions

Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing

1. Form single hypothesis — "I think X is the root cause because Y"
2. Test minimally — smallest possible change, one variable at a time
3. Verify — did it work? If not, form NEW hypothesis. Don't pile fixes on top.
4. When you don't know — say so. Don't pretend. Research more.

Phase 4: Implementation

1. Create failing test/reproduction — simplest possible, automated if possible
2. Implement single fix — address root cause, ONE change, no "while I'm here" improvements
3. Verify fix — test passes? No other tests broken? Issue resolved?
4. If fix doesn't work:
   • Count fixes attempted
   • If < 3: return to Phase 1, re-analyze with new information
   • If >= 3: STOP — question the architecture (see below)

When 3+ Fixes Fail

Pattern indicating architectural problem:

• Each fix reveals new issues in different places
• Fixes require "massive refactoring"
• Each fix creates new symptoms elsewhere

STOP and discuss with the user before attempting more fixes. This is not a failed hypothesis — it's a wrong approach.

Red Flags — STOP and Return to Phase 1

If you catch yourself thinking:

• "Quick fix for now, investigate later"
• "Just try changing X and see if it works"
• "It's probably X, let me fix that"
• "I don't fully understand but this might work"
• Proposing solutions before tracing data flow
• "One more fix attempt" when already tried 2+

Common Rationalizations

Excuse	Reality
"Issue is simple, don't need process"	Simple issues have root causes too
"Emergency, no time for process"	Systematic is FASTER than guess-and-check
"Just try this first, then investigate"	First fix sets the pattern. Do it right.
"Multiple fixes at once saves time"	Can't isolate what worked. Causes new bugs.
"I see the problem, let me fix it"	Seeing symptoms != understanding root cause

Quick Reference

Phase	Key Activities	Done when
1. Root Cause	Read errors, reproduce, check changes, trace data	Understand WHAT and WHY
2. Pattern	Find working examples, compare	Differences identified
3. Hypothesis	Form theory, test minimally	Confirmed or new hypothesis
4. Implementation	Create test, fix, verify	Bug resolved, tests pass

Attribution

Adapted from obra/superpowers systematic-debugging skill.