From sdd
Debugs issues using competing hypotheses in parallel via agent teams. Multiple teammates investigate different theories simultaneously and challenge each other's findings to converge on the root cause. Use when user says "team debug", "parallel debug", "investigate with team", "competing hypotheses", "debug in parallel", or when the root cause is unclear and multiple theories are plausible. Do NOT use for obvious bugs with clear stack traces — debug directly instead. Do NOT use when agent teams are not enabled.
npx claudepluginhub robertraf/rob-agent-workflow --plugin sddThis skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.
You are orchestrating **parallel debugging with competing hypotheses** using agent teams. Multiple investigators test different theories simultaneously and debate to converge on the root cause.
Mandates invoking relevant skills via tools before any response in coding sessions. Covers access, priorities, and adaptations for Claude Code, Copilot CLI, Gemini CLI.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
You are orchestrating parallel debugging with competing hypotheses using agent teams. Multiple investigators test different theories simultaneously and debate to converge on the root cause.
$ARGUMENTS
If $ARGUMENTS is empty, ask the user to describe the bug, symptoms, or error they're seeing.
Before forming hypotheses, gather facts:
git log --oneline -20
Based on the symptoms, generate 3-5 distinct hypotheses about the root cause. Each hypothesis should be:
Present the hypotheses to the user:
Based on the symptoms, here are the competing hypotheses:
1. [Hypothesis A] — [why it's plausible]
2. [Hypothesis B] — [why it's plausible]
3. [Hypothesis C] — [why it's plausible]
Creating a debug team to investigate in parallel...
Create an agent team to investigate a bug. Spawn one teammate per hypothesis.
Each investigator must:
1. Investigate their assigned hypothesis
2. Gather evidence for AND against their theory
3. Share findings with other teammates
4. Actively challenge other teammates' theories
5. Converge toward the most supported explanation
This is a scientific debate — the theory that survives scrutiny is the answer.
Each teammate receives:
Teammates should actively challenge each other's findings. When one investigator
finds evidence, others should try to find counter-evidence. The goal is the truth,
not winning — investigators should abandon their hypothesis if evidence disproves it.
While teammates work:
Once the team converges or all hypotheses have been tested:
Bug: [description] Root cause: [the winning hypothesis with evidence] Confidence: High / Medium / Low
| Hypothesis | Verdict | Key evidence |
|---|---|---|
| [A] | Confirmed / Eliminated / Inconclusive | [summary] |
| [B] | Confirmed / Eliminated / Inconclusive | [summary] |
| [C] | Confirmed / Eliminated / Inconclusive | [summary] |
Investigation complete. Root cause identified.
Options:
• "fix it" — I'll implement the fix using TDD (/implement)
• "team fix" — I'll create a team to fix and add regression tests (/team-implement)
• "just the report" — Take the findings and fix manually
Ask all investigators to shut down, then clean up the team.
| Situation | Use |
|---|---|
| Obvious bug with clear stack trace | Debug directly |
| Multiple plausible root causes | /team-debug |
| Intermittent or hard-to-reproduce bug | /team-debug |
| Production incident needing fast resolution | /team-debug |
| Simple typo or config error | Debug directly |
| Cross-system or cross-service issue | /team-debug |
These are common failure modes during parallel debugging. Watch for them: