---
id: gh-amplifier-bundle-superpowers
name: "amplifier-bundle-superpowers"
url: https://skills.yangsir.net/skill/gh-amplifier-bundle-superpowers
author: obra
domain: ai-system-observability-sre
tags: ["debugging", "troubleshooting", "devops", "problem-solving", "software-engineering"]
install_count: 520
rating: 4.20 (120 reviews)
github: https://github.com/obra/amplifier-bundle-superpowers/tree/main/skills/systematic-debugging
---

# amplifier-bundle-superpowers

> 本技能提供一套系统化的调试方法，旨在帮助开发者高效定位并解决技术问题。它强调在尝试任何修复前，必须深入调查找出根本原因，避免随机修补和症状性修复。通过遵循四个阶段：根源调查、模式分析、假设与测试、以及实施，确保问题得到彻底解决，从而节省时间，减少新错误的产生，并提升系统稳定性。

**Stats**: 520 installs · 4.2/5 (120 reviews)

## Before / After 对比

### 提高调试效率

**Before**:

面对复杂的技术问题时，团队成员往往凭经验或直觉进行随机尝试，导致耗费大量时间却无法找到真正原因，甚至引入新的错误，使问题变得更加难以解决。

**After**:

采用系统化调试方法后，团队能够迅速聚焦问题核心，通过结构化的调查和测试，高效定位并解决根本原因，显著缩短问题解决周期，提升系统稳定性。

| Metric | Before | After | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 平均解决时间 | 60分钟 | 10分钟 | -83% |

## Readme

# 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. Symptom fixes are failure.

**Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of debugging.**

## The Iron Law

```
NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST
```

If you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.

## When to Use

Use for ANY technical issue:
- Test failures
- Bugs in production
- Unexpected behavior
- Performance problems
- Build failures
- Integration issues

**Use this ESPECIALLY when:**
- Under time pressure (emergencies make guessing tempting)
- "Just one quick fix" seems obvious
- You've already tried multiple fixes
- Previous fix didn't work
- You don't fully understand the issue

## The Four Phases

You MUST 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 exact 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?
   - Does it happen every time?
   - If not reproducible → gather more data, don't guess

3. **Check Recent Changes**
   - What changed that could cause this?
   - Git diff, recent commits
   - New dependencies, config changes
   - Environmental differences

4. **Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems**

   **WHEN system has multiple components:**

   Add diagnostic instrumentation at each boundary:
   ```
   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
   THEN analyze where it breaks
   THEN investigate that specific component
   ```

5. **Trace Data Flow**

   **WHEN error is deep in call stack:**
   
   - Where does bad value originate?
   - What called this with bad value?
   - Keep tracing up until you find the source
   - **Fix at source, not at symptom**

### Phase 2: Pattern Analysis

**Find the pattern before fixing:**

1. **Find Working Examples**
   - Locate similar working code in same codebase
   - What works that's similar to what's broken?

2. **Compare Against References**
   - If implementing a pattern, read reference completely
   - Don't skim - read every line
   - Understand the pattern fully before applying

3. **Identify Differences**
   - What's different between working and broken?
   - List every difference, however small
   - Don't assume "that can't matter"

4. **Understand Dependencies**
   - What other components does this need?
   - What settings, config, environment?
   - What assumptions does it make?

### Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing

**Scientific method:**

1. **Form Single Hypothesis**
   - State clearly: "I think X is the root cause because Y"
   - Write it down
   - Be specific, not vague

2. **Test Minimally**
   - Make the SMALLEST possible change to test hypothesis
   - One variable at a time
   - Don't fix multiple things at once

3. **Verify Before Continuing**
   - Did it work? Yes → Phase 4
   - Didn't work? Form NEW hypothesis
   - DON'T add more fixes on top

4. **When You Don't Know**
   - Say "I don't understand X"
   - Don't pretend to know
   - Ask for help
   - Research more

### Phase 4: Implementation

**Fix the root cause, not the symptom:**

1. **Create Failing Test Case**
   - Simplest possible reproduction
   - Automated test if possible
   - MUST have before fixing

2. **Implement Single Fix**
   - Address the root cause identified
   - ONE change at a time
   - No "while I'm here" improvements

3. **Verify Fix**
   - Test passes now?
   - No other tests broken?
   - Issue actually resolved?

4. **If Fix Doesn't Work**
   - STOP
   - Count: How many fixes have you tried?
   - If < 3: Return to Phase 1, re-analyze
   - **If ≥ 3: STOP and question the architecture**

5. **If 3+ Fixes Failed: Question Architecture**

   **Pattern indicating architectural problem:**
   - Each fix reveals new shared state/coupling
   - Fixes require "massive refactoring"
   - Each fix creates new symptoms elsewhere

   **STOP and question fundamentals:**
   - Is this pattern fundamentally sound?
   - Should we refactor architecture vs. continue fixing symptoms?

   **Discuss with your human partner before attempting more fixes.**

## Red Flags - STOP and Follow Process

If you catch yourself thinking:
- "Quick fix for now, investigate later"
- "Just try changing X and see if it works"
- "Add multiple changes, run tests"
- "Skip the test, I'll manually verify"
- "It's probably X, let me fix that"
- "I don't fully understand but this might work"
- "One more fix attempt" (when already tried 2+)

**ALL of these mean: STOP. Return to Phase 1.**

## Common Rationalizations

| Excuse | Reality |
|--------|---------|
| "Issue is simple, don't need process" | Simple issues have root causes too. Process is fast. |
| "Emergency, no time for process" | Systematic is FASTER than guess-and-check thrashing. |
| "Just try this first, then investigate" | First fix sets the pattern. Do it right from start. |
| "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 | Success Criteria |
|-------|----------------|------------------|
| **1. Root Cause** | Read errors, reproduce, check changes, trace data | 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 |

## Real-World Impact

From debugging sessions:
- Systematic approach: 15-30 minutes to fix
- Random fixes approach: 2-3 hours of thrashing
- First-time fix rate: 95% vs 40%
- New bugs introduced: Near zero vs common

## Final Rule

```
Understand first → Hypothesis → Test → Fix
Otherwise → Wasted time and new bugs
```


---
*Source: https://skills.yangsir.net/skill/gh-amplifier-bundle-superpowers*
*Markdown mirror: https://skills.yangsir.net/api/skill/gh-amplifier-bundle-superpowers/markdown*