Awesome-omni-skill debugging-workflow
Systematic debugging workflow with parallel agent exploration, root cause analysis, and fix verification. Adapted from feature-dev methodology for bug investigation.
git clone https://github.com/diegosouzapw/awesome-omni-skill
T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/diegosouzapw/awesome-omni-skill "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/skills/development/debugging-workflow" ~/.claude/skills/diegosouzapw-awesome-omni-skill-debugging-workflow && rm -rf "$T"
skills/development/debugging-workflow/SKILL.mdDebugging Workflow Rules
Core Philosophy
Understand before you fix.
Debugging is not about quick patches - it's about:
- Deep understanding of the bug's manifestation
- Systematic tracing to root cause
- Strategic fix design considering side effects
- Thorough verification of the fix
6-Phase Debugging Workflow
| Phase | Name | Purpose | Agents |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Discovery | Understand bug symptoms | - |
| 2 | Exploration | Trace execution paths | 2-3 debug-explorer |
| 3 | Root Cause | Identify true cause | Analysis synthesis |
| 4 | Strategy | Design fix approach | 2-3 debug-strategist |
| 5 | Implementation | Apply the fix | User-approved |
| 6 | Verification | Confirm fix works | 2-3 debug-verifier |
Phase Details
Phase 1: Bug Discovery
Gather complete information about the bug:
BugReport: symptoms: What is happening? expected: What should happen? reproduction: Steps to reproduce frequency: Always / Sometimes / Rare context: Environment, version, user actions error_output: Error messages, stack traces, logs
Key Questions:
- When did this start happening?
- What changed recently?
- Is it environment-specific?
- Can it be reliably reproduced?
Phase 2: Codebase Exploration
Launch 2-3 debug-explorer agents in parallel with different focuses:
| Focus | Investigation Target |
|---|---|
| Execution Path | Trace the failing code path step by step |
| Data Flow | Track data transformations and mutations |
| Dependencies | Check related components and integrations |
Serena MCP Integration:
# Symbol-level tracing find_symbol: Locate relevant functions/classes find_referencing_symbols: Find all callers search_for_pattern: Search for error patterns
Phase 3: Root Cause Analysis
Synthesize exploration findings:
RootCauseAnalysis: immediate_cause: What directly triggers the error? underlying_cause: Why does this condition exist? contributing_factors: What else enables this bug? timeline: When was this introduced?
Common Root Cause Categories:
| Category | Examples |
|---|---|
| Logic Error | Wrong condition, off-by-one, null check missing |
| State Management | Race condition, stale data, unexpected mutation |
| Integration | API contract mismatch, version incompatibility |
| Resource | Memory leak, connection exhaustion, timeout |
| Configuration | Wrong settings, missing env vars, path issues |
Phase 4: Fix Strategy Design
Launch 2-3 debug-strategist agents with different approaches:
| Approach | Strategy |
|---|---|
| Minimal | Smallest change to fix the symptom |
| Comprehensive | Address root cause and prevent recurrence |
| Defensive | Add guards, validation, error handling |
Strategy Evaluation Criteria:
- Risk of regression
- Impact on related functionality
- Code quality improvement
- Testing feasibility
Phase 5: Implementation
Requires explicit user approval before proceeding.
Implementation checklist:
- Apply the chosen fix strategy
- Update related code if needed
- Add defensive checks where appropriate
- Document the fix rationale
Phase 6: Verification
Launch 2-3 debug-verifier agents with different focuses:
| Focus | Verification Target |
|---|---|
| Direct | Does the original bug no longer occur? |
| Regression | Are there any new issues introduced? |
| Edge Cases | Does it handle boundary conditions? |
Verification Methods:
- Manual reproduction attempt
- Related test execution
- Code review for side effects
- Static analysis check
Confidence Scoring
All agents use confidence scoring (0-100):
| Score | Meaning | Action |
|---|---|---|
| 0-25 | Speculation | Do not report |
| 26-50 | Possible | Mention if relevant |
| 51-79 | Likely | Report with caveats |
| 80-100 | Confident | Report as finding |
Only report findings with confidence ≥ 80%
Integration with Serena MCP
| Task | Serena Tool |
|---|---|
| Find function definition | |
| Trace all callers | |
| Search error patterns | |
| Get file overview | |
| Read specific symbol | with |
Output Templates
Exploration Report
## Exploration: [Focus Area] ### Entry Points Found - `file.ts:123` - `functionName` - [description] ### Execution Path 1. [Step 1 description] 2. [Step 2 description] ### Key Components | Component | File | Responsibility | |-----------|------|----------------| ### Architecture Insights - [Insight 1] - [Insight 2] ### Critical Files to Review 1. `path/to/file.ts` - [reason]
Strategy Report
## Fix Strategy: [Approach Name] ### Proposed Change [Description of the fix] ### Files to Modify | File | Change Type | Description | |------|-------------|-------------| ### Risk Assessment - Regression risk: Low/Medium/High - Impact scope: [affected areas] ### Implementation Steps 1. [Step 1] 2. [Step 2]
Verification Report
## Verification: [Focus Area] ### Test Results | Test | Status | Notes | |------|--------|-------| ### Issues Found - Severity: Critical/Important - Confidence: [score]% - Location: `file:line` - Description: [issue] - Suggested Fix: [fix] ### Final Assessment [Pass/Fail with reasoning]
Detailed templates:
Read("references/debug-patterns.md")