superpowers-debugging
Skill2 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
4-phase systematic root-cause debugging. Investigate before fixing, form hypotheses, verify. This skill should be used when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior.
1 other project uses a version of this, 1 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- ErrorNotFound808/claude-skillsedited, first seen Oct 8, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 1
- ErrorNotFound808/claude-skills★ 038% same
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository3 other files it gives its agents.
- superpowers-planSkill
- superpowers-tddSkill
- superpowers-verifySkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 14
Core principle: ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes.
- Distinctive: line 22
If you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
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.
The Iron Law
NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRSTIf you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.
The Four Phases
You MUST complete each phase before proceeding to the next.
Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation
BEFORE attempting ANY fix:
- Read Error Messages Carefully — don't skip past errors; they often contain the exact solution
- Reproduce Consistently — exact steps, every time; if not reproducible, gather more data
- Check Recent Changes — git diff, recent commits, new dependencies, config changes
- Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems — instrument each component boundary to find WHERE it breaks
- Trace Data Flow — where does the bad value originate? Keep tracing up.
Phase 2: Pattern Analysis
Find the pattern before fixing: locate similar working code, compare against references, identify every difference (however small), understand dependencies.
Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing
Scientific method: form a single specific hypothesis, test minimally (one variable at a time), verify before continuing. Don't know? Say "I don't understand X" — don't pretend.
Phase 4: Implementation
Fix the root cause, not the symptom. Create a failing test case first. Implement a single fix — no "while I'm here" improvements. Verify the fix.
If 3+ fixes have failed: STOP and question the architecture. Each fix revealing new problems elsewhere is a pattern indicating architectural problems, not a series of independent bugs.
Red Flags — STOP and Return to Phase 1
"Quick fix for now, investigate later." "Just try changing X and see if it works." "Multiple fixes at once saves time." "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" (after 2+ failures).
Quick Reference
| Phase | Key Activities | Success Criteria |
| 1. Root Cause | Read errors, reproduce, check changes, gather evidence | 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
Systematic approach: 15-30 minutes to fix. Random fixes: 2-3 hours of thrashing. First-time fix rate: 95% vs 40%.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.