@liangjie559567/ultrapower 5.0.4

package/skills/systematic-debugging/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,331 @@
+---
+name: systematic-debugging
+description: Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes
+---
+
+# 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
+
+**Don't skip when:**
+- Issue seems simple (simple bugs have root causes too)
+- You're in a hurry (rushing guarantees rework)
+- Manager wants it fixed NOW (systematic is faster than thrashing)
+
+## 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 (CI → build → signing, API → service → database):**
+
+   **BEFORE proposing fixes, add diagnostic instrumentation:**
+   ```
+   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 showing WHERE it breaks
+   THEN analyze evidence to identify failing component
+   THEN investigate that specific component
+   ```
+
+   **Example (multi-layer system):**
+   ```bash
+   # Layer 1: Workflow
+   echo "=== Secrets available in workflow: ==="
+   echo "IDENTITY: ${IDENTITY:+SET}${IDENTITY:-UNSET}"
+
+   # Layer 2: Build script
+   echo "=== Env vars in build script: ==="
+   env | grep IDENTITY || echo "IDENTITY not in environment"
+
+   # Layer 3: Signing script
+   echo "=== Keychain state: ==="
+   security list-keychains
+   security find-identity -v
+
+   # Layer 4: Actual signing
+   codesign --sign "$IDENTITY" --verbose=4 "$APP"
+   ```
+
+   **This reveals:** Which layer fails (secrets → workflow ✓, workflow → build ✗)
+
+5. **Trace Data Flow**
+
+   **WHEN error is deep in call stack:**
+
+   See `root-cause-tracing.md` in this directory for the complete backward tracing technique.
+
+   **Quick version:**
+   - 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 pattern, read reference implementation 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
+   - One-off test script if no framework
+   - MUST have before fixing
+   - Use the `superpowers:test-driven-development` skill for writing proper failing tests
+
+2. **Implement Single Fix**
+   - Address the root cause identified
+   - ONE change at a time
+   - No "while I'm here" improvements
+   - No bundled refactoring
+
+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 with new information
+   - **If ≥ 3: STOP and question the architecture (step 5 below)**
+   - DON'T attempt Fix #4 without architectural discussion
+
+5. **If 3+ Fixes Failed: Question Architecture**
+
+   **Pattern indicating architectural problem:**
+   - Each fix reveals new shared state/coupling/problem in different place
+   - Fixes require "massive refactoring" to implement
+   - Each fix creates new symptoms elsewhere
+
+   **STOP and question fundamentals:**
+   - Is this pattern fundamentally sound?
+   - Are we "sticking with it through sheer inertia"?
+   - Should we refactor architecture vs. continue fixing symptoms?
+
+   **Discuss with your human partner before attempting more fixes**
+
+   This is NOT a failed hypothesis - this is a wrong architecture.
+
+## 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"
+- "Pattern says X but I'll adapt it differently"
+- "Here are the main problems: [lists fixes without investigation]"
+- Proposing solutions before tracing data flow
+- **"One more fix attempt" (when already tried 2+)**
+- **Each fix reveals new problem in different place**
+
+**ALL of these mean: STOP. Return to Phase 1.**
+
+**If 3+ fixes failed:** Question the architecture (see Phase 4.5)
+
+## your human partner's Signals You're Doing It Wrong
+
+**Watch for these redirections:**
+- "Is that not happening?" - You assumed without verifying
+- "Will it show us...?" - You should have added evidence gathering
+- "Stop guessing" - You're proposing fixes without understanding
+- "Ultrathink this" - Question fundamentals, not just symptoms
+- "We're stuck?" (frustrated) - Your approach isn't working
+
+**When you see these:** 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 for simple bugs. |
+| "Emergency, no time for process" | Systematic debugging is FASTER than guess-and-check thrashing. |
+| "Just try this first, then investigate" | First fix sets the pattern. Do it right from the start. |
+| "I'll write test after confirming fix works" | Untested fixes don't stick. Test first proves it. |
+| "Multiple fixes at once saves time" | Can't isolate what worked. Causes new bugs. |
+| "Reference too long, I'll adapt the pattern" | Partial understanding guarantees bugs. Read it completely. |
+| "I see the problem, let me fix it" | Seeing symptoms ≠ understanding root cause. |
+| "One more fix attempt" (after 2+ failures) | 3+ failures = architectural problem. Question pattern, don't fix again. |
+
+## 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 |
+
+## When Process Reveals "No Root Cause"
+
+If systematic investigation reveals issue is truly environmental, timing-dependent, or external:
+
+1. You've completed the process
+2. Document what you investigated
+3. Implement appropriate handling (retry, timeout, error message)
+4. Add monitoring/logging for future investigation
+
+**But:** 95% of "no root cause" cases are incomplete investigation.
+
+## Supporting Techniques
+
+These techniques are part of systematic debugging and available in this directory:
+
+- **`root-cause-tracing.md`** - Trace bugs backward through call stack to find original trigger
+- **`defense-in-depth.md`** - Add validation at multiple layers after finding root cause
+- **`condition-based-waiting.md`** - Replace arbitrary timeouts with condition polling
+
+**Related skills:**
+- **superpowers:test-driven-development** - For creating failing test case (Phase 4, Step 1)
+- **superpowers:verification-before-completion** - Verify fix worked before claiming success
+
+## 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
+
+## 路由触发
+
+根因确认后调用 `next-step-router`：
+- current_skill: "systematic-debugging"
+- stage: "root_cause_confirmed"
+- output_summary: 根因描述、涉及文件、是否需要测试先行
+
+## Axiom 错误分析增强流程
+
+当遇到熔断（3次修复失败）或直接抛出报错时，执行以下步骤：
+
+### Phase 1: 日志收集
+- 读取构建日志完整输出
+- 读取测试失败详情
+- 执行 `git diff HEAD~1` 查看最近代码变更
+
+### Phase 2: 差异分析
+- 读取 `.omc/axiom/active_context.md` 中的 `last_checkpoint`
+- 执行 `git diff [last_checkpoint]..HEAD` 对比差异
+- 定位可能出问题的文件
+
+### Phase 3: 根因分析（模式匹配优先）
+- 检查 `.omc/axiom/project_decisions.md` 的 `Known Issues` 是否有类似错误
+- 若匹配：直接应用历史修复方案
+- 若无匹配：基于上下文进行 AI 推理
+
+### Phase 4: 解决方案选择
+- **Option A - Auto-Fix（置信度 > 80%）**: 自动应用修复，重新运行验证
+- **Option B - Rollback**: `git reset --hard [last_checkpoint]`，输出"已回滚到检查点"
+- **Option C - Skip Task**: 将当前任务标记为 `BLOCKED`，继续执行队列中下一个任务
+
+### Phase 5: 学习记录
+- 将错误模式写入 `.omc/axiom/project_decisions.md` 的 `## Known Issues`
+- 格式：`| 日期 | 错误类型 | 根因分析 | 修复方案 | 影响范围 |`

package/skills/systematic-debugging/condition-based-waiting-example.ts

@@ -0,0 +1,158 @@
+// Complete implementation of condition-based waiting utilities
+// From: Lace test infrastructure improvements (2025-10-03)
+// Context: Fixed 15 flaky tests by replacing arbitrary timeouts
+
+import type { ThreadManager } from '~/threads/thread-manager';
+import type { LaceEvent, LaceEventType } from '~/threads/types';
+
+/**
+ * Wait for a specific event type to appear in thread
+ *
+ * @param threadManager - The thread manager to query
+ * @param threadId - Thread to check for events
+ * @param eventType - Type of event to wait for
+ * @param timeoutMs - Maximum time to wait (default 5000ms)
+ * @returns Promise resolving to the first matching event
+ *
+ * Example:
+ *   await waitForEvent(threadManager, agentThreadId, 'TOOL_RESULT');
+ */
+export function waitForEvent(
+  threadManager: ThreadManager,
+  threadId: string,
+  eventType: LaceEventType,
+  timeoutMs = 5000
+): Promise<LaceEvent> {
+  return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
+    const startTime = Date.now();
+
+    const check = () => {
+      const events = threadManager.getEvents(threadId);
+      const event = events.find((e) => e.type === eventType);
+
+      if (event) {
+        resolve(event);
+      } else if (Date.now() - startTime > timeoutMs) {
+        reject(new Error(`Timeout waiting for ${eventType} event after ${timeoutMs}ms`));
+      } else {
+        setTimeout(check, 10); // Poll every 10ms for efficiency
+      }
+    };
+
+    check();
+  });
+}
+
+/**
+ * Wait for a specific number of events of a given type
+ *
+ * @param threadManager - The thread manager to query
+ * @param threadId - Thread to check for events
+ * @param eventType - Type of event to wait for
+ * @param count - Number of events to wait for
+ * @param timeoutMs - Maximum time to wait (default 5000ms)
+ * @returns Promise resolving to all matching events once count is reached
+ *
+ * Example:
+ *   // Wait for 2 AGENT_MESSAGE events (initial response + continuation)
+ *   await waitForEventCount(threadManager, agentThreadId, 'AGENT_MESSAGE', 2);
+ */
+export function waitForEventCount(
+  threadManager: ThreadManager,
+  threadId: string,
+  eventType: LaceEventType,
+  count: number,
+  timeoutMs = 5000
+): Promise<LaceEvent[]> {
+  return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
+    const startTime = Date.now();
+
+    const check = () => {
+      const events = threadManager.getEvents(threadId);
+      const matchingEvents = events.filter((e) => e.type === eventType);
+
+      if (matchingEvents.length >= count) {
+        resolve(matchingEvents);
+      } else if (Date.now() - startTime > timeoutMs) {
+        reject(
+          new Error(
+            `Timeout waiting for ${count} ${eventType} events after ${timeoutMs}ms (got ${matchingEvents.length})`
+          )
+        );
+      } else {
+        setTimeout(check, 10);
+      }
+    };
+
+    check();
+  });
+}
+
+/**
+ * Wait for an event matching a custom predicate
+ * Useful when you need to check event data, not just type
+ *
+ * @param threadManager - The thread manager to query
+ * @param threadId - Thread to check for events
+ * @param predicate - Function that returns true when event matches
+ * @param description - Human-readable description for error messages
+ * @param timeoutMs - Maximum time to wait (default 5000ms)
+ * @returns Promise resolving to the first matching event
+ *
+ * Example:
+ *   // Wait for TOOL_RESULT with specific ID
+ *   await waitForEventMatch(
+ *     threadManager,
+ *     agentThreadId,
+ *     (e) => e.type === 'TOOL_RESULT' && e.data.id === 'call_123',
+ *     'TOOL_RESULT with id=call_123'
+ *   );
+ */
+export function waitForEventMatch(
+  threadManager: ThreadManager,
+  threadId: string,
+  predicate: (event: LaceEvent) => boolean,
+  description: string,
+  timeoutMs = 5000
+): Promise<LaceEvent> {
+  return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
+    const startTime = Date.now();
+
+    const check = () => {
+      const events = threadManager.getEvents(threadId);
+      const event = events.find(predicate);
+
+      if (event) {
+        resolve(event);
+      } else if (Date.now() - startTime > timeoutMs) {
+        reject(new Error(`Timeout waiting for ${description} after ${timeoutMs}ms`));
+      } else {
+        setTimeout(check, 10);
+      }
+    };
+
+    check();
+  });
+}
+
+// Usage example from actual debugging session:
+//
+// BEFORE (flaky):
+// ---------------
+// const messagePromise = agent.sendMessage('Execute tools');
+// await new Promise(r => setTimeout(r, 300)); // Hope tools start in 300ms
+// agent.abort();
+// await messagePromise;
+// await new Promise(r => setTimeout(r, 50));  // Hope results arrive in 50ms
+// expect(toolResults.length).toBe(2);         // Fails randomly
+//
+// AFTER (reliable):
+// ----------------
+// const messagePromise = agent.sendMessage('Execute tools');
+// await waitForEventCount(threadManager, threadId, 'TOOL_CALL', 2); // Wait for tools to start
+// agent.abort();
+// await messagePromise;
+// await waitForEventCount(threadManager, threadId, 'TOOL_RESULT', 2); // Wait for results
+// expect(toolResults.length).toBe(2); // Always succeeds
+//
+// Result: 60% pass rate → 100%, 40% faster execution

package/skills/systematic-debugging/condition-based-waiting.md

@@ -0,0 +1,115 @@
+# 基于条件的等待
+
+## 概述
+
+不稳定的测试通常用任意延迟来猜测时机。这会产生竞态条件，测试在快速机器上通过，但在负载或 CI 中失败。
+
+**核心原则：** 等待你真正关心的条件，而非猜测需要多长时间。
+
+## 使用时机
+
+```dot
+digraph when_to_use {
+    "Test uses setTimeout/sleep?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Testing timing behavior?" [shape=diamond];
+    "Document WHY timeout needed" [shape=box];
+    "Use condition-based waiting" [shape=box];
+
+    "Test uses setTimeout/sleep?" -> "Testing timing behavior?" [label="yes"];
+    "Testing timing behavior?" -> "Document WHY timeout needed" [label="yes"];
+    "Testing timing behavior?" -> "Use condition-based waiting" [label="no"];
+}
+```
+
+**使用场景：**
+- 测试有任意延迟（`setTimeout`、`sleep`、`time.sleep()`）
+- 测试不稳定（有时通过，在负载下失败）
+- 并行运行时测试超时
+- 等待异步操作完成
+
+**不使用场景：**
+- 测试实际的时序行为（防抖、节流间隔）
+- 如果使用任意超时，始终记录原因
+
+## 核心模式
+
+```typescript
+// ❌ 之前：猜测时机
+await new Promise(r => setTimeout(r, 50));
+const result = getResult();
+expect(result).toBeDefined();
+
+// ✅ 之后：等待条件
+await waitFor(() => getResult() !== undefined);
+const result = getResult();
+expect(result).toBeDefined();
+```
+
+## 快速模式
+
+| 场景 | 模式 |
+|----------|---------|
+| 等待事件 | `waitFor(() => events.find(e => e.type === 'DONE'))` |
+| 等待状态 | `waitFor(() => machine.state === 'ready')` |
+| 等待数量 | `waitFor(() => items.length >= 5)` |
+| 等待文件 | `waitFor(() => fs.existsSync(path))` |
+| 复杂条件 | `waitFor(() => obj.ready && obj.value > 10)` |
+
+## 实现
+
+通用轮询函数：
+```typescript
+async function waitFor<T>(
+  condition: () => T | undefined | null | false,
+  description: string,
+  timeoutMs = 5000
+): Promise<T> {
+  const startTime = Date.now();
+
+  while (true) {
+    const result = condition();
+    if (result) return result;
+
+    if (Date.now() - startTime > timeoutMs) {
+      throw new Error(`Timeout waiting for ${description} after ${timeoutMs}ms`);
+    }
+
+    await new Promise(r => setTimeout(r, 10)); // 每 10ms 轮询一次
+  }
+}
+```
+
+完整实现（包含领域特定辅助函数 `waitForEvent`、`waitForEventCount`、`waitForEventMatch`）见本目录中的 `condition-based-waiting-example.ts`。
+
+## 常见错误
+
+**❌ 轮询太快：** `setTimeout(check, 1)` - 浪费 CPU
+**✅ 修复：** 每 10ms 轮询一次
+
+**❌ 无超时：** 如果条件永远不满足则无限循环
+**✅ 修复：** 始终包含带清晰错误信息的超时
+
+**❌ 过期数据：** 在循环前缓存状态
+**✅ 修复：** 在循环内调用 getter 以获取新鲜数据
+
+## 任意超时何时是正确的
+
+```typescript
+// 工具每 100ms 触发一次——需要 2 次触发来验证部分输出
+await waitForEvent(manager, 'TOOL_STARTED'); // 首先：等待条件
+await new Promise(r => setTimeout(r, 200));   // 然后：等待定时行为
+// 200ms = 100ms 间隔的 2 次触发——有记录且有理由
+```
+
+**要求：**
+1. 首先等待触发条件
+2. 基于已知时序（而非猜测）
+3. 注释说明原因
+
+## 实际影响
+
+来自调试会话（2025-10-03）：
+- 修复了 3 个文件中的 15 个不稳定测试
+- 通过率：60% → 100%
+- 执行时间：快 40%
+- 无更多竞态条件