@prismer/runtime 2.0.8 → 2.2.63

package/built-in-skills/diagnosing-bugs/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,148 @@
+---
+name: diagnosing-bugs
+scope: coding
+metadata:
+  nativeReplaces: [systematic-debugging, inspecting-hermes-desktop-dom]
+source: https://github.com/mattpocock/skills (MIT, © 2026 Matt Pocock)
+description: Diagnosis loop for hard bugs and performance regressions. Use when the user says "diagnose"/"debug this", or reports something broken/throwing/failing/slow.
+---
+
+# Diagnosing Bugs
+
+For cross-component tracing and hypothesis testing, consult
+references/systematic-debugging/GUIDE.md. Its supporting files are relative to
+that directory. Use tools actually exposed by this Runtime; upstream repository
+paths and named subagents are not installed capabilities. Diagnose, reproduce,
+fix the cause, and rerun the reproducer before claiming success.
+
+For Electron DOM/CSS or stale-renderer diagnosis, read
+references/desktop-dom/GUIDE.md. Match the actual app/build/PID and use an
+authorized loopback target; never relaunch the user's app to obtain CDP.
+
+A discipline for hard bugs. Skip phases only when explicitly justified.
+
+When exploring the codebase, read `CONTEXT.md` (if it exists) to get a clear mental model of the relevant modules, and check ADRs in the area you're touching.
+
+## Phase 1 — Build a feedback loop
+
+**This is the skill.** Everything else is mechanical. If you have a **tight** pass/fail signal for the bug — one that goes red on _this_ bug — you will find the cause; bisection, hypothesis-testing, and instrumentation all just consume it. If you don't have one, no amount of staring at code will save you.
+
+Spend disproportionate effort here. **Be aggressive. Be creative. Refuse to give up.**
+
+### Ways to construct one — try them in roughly this order
+
+1. **Failing test** at whatever seam reaches the bug — unit, integration, e2e.
+2. **Curl / HTTP script** against a running dev server.
+3. **CLI invocation** with a fixture input, diffing stdout against a known-good snapshot.
+4. **Headless browser script** (Playwright / Puppeteer) — drives the UI, asserts on DOM/console/network.
+5. **Replay a captured trace.** Save a real network request / payload / event log to disk; replay it through the code path in isolation.
+6. **Throwaway harness.** Spin up a minimal subset of the system (one service, mocked deps) that exercises the bug code path with a single function call.
+7. **Property / fuzz loop.** If the bug is "sometimes wrong output", run 1000 random inputs and look for the failure mode.
+8. **Bisection harness.** If the bug appeared between two known states (commit, dataset, version), automate "boot at state X, check, repeat" so you can `git bisect run` it.
+9. **Differential loop.** Run the same input through old-version vs new-version (or two configs) and diff outputs.
+10. **HITL bash script.** Last resort. If a human must click, drive _them_ with `scripts/hitl-loop.template.sh` so the loop is still structured. Captured output feeds back to you.
+
+Build the right feedback loop, and the bug is 90% fixed.
+
+### Tighten the loop
+
+Treat the loop as a product. Once you have _a_ loop, **tighten** it:
+
+- Can I make it faster? (Cache setup, skip unrelated init, narrow the test scope.)
+- Can I make the signal sharper? (Assert on the specific symptom, not "didn't crash".)
+- Can I make it more deterministic? (Pin time, seed RNG, isolate filesystem, freeze network.)
+
+A 30-second flaky loop is barely better than no loop; a 2-second deterministic one is tight — a debugging superpower.
+
+### Non-deterministic bugs
+
+The goal is not a clean repro but a **higher reproduction rate**. Loop the trigger 100×, parallelise, add stress, narrow timing windows, inject sleeps. A 50%-flake bug is debuggable; 1% is not — keep raising the rate until it's debuggable.
+
+### When you genuinely cannot build a loop
+
+Stop and say so explicitly. List what you tried. Ask the user for: (a) access to whatever environment reproduces it, (b) a captured artifact (HAR file, log dump, core dump, screen recording with timestamps), or (c) permission to add temporary production instrumentation. Do **not** proceed to hypothesise without a loop.
+
+### Completion criterion — a tight loop that goes red
+
+Phase 1 is done when the loop is **tight** and **red-capable**: you can name **one command** — a script path, a test invocation, a curl — that you have **already run at least once** (paste the invocation and its output), and that is:
+
+- [ ] **Red-capable** — it drives the actual bug code path and asserts the **user's exact symptom**, so it can go red on this bug and green once fixed. Not "runs without erroring" — it must be able to _catch this specific bug_.
+- [ ] **Deterministic** — same verdict every run (flaky bugs: a pinned, high reproduction rate, per above).
+- [ ] **Fast** — seconds, not minutes.
+- [ ] **Agent-runnable** — you can run it unattended; a human in the loop only via `scripts/hitl-loop.template.sh`.
+
+If you catch yourself reading code to build a theory before this command exists, **stop — jumping straight to a hypothesis is the exact failure this skill prevents.** No red-capable command, no Phase 2.
+
+## Phase 2 — Reproduce + minimise
+
+Run the loop. Watch it go red — the bug appears.
+
+Confirm:
+
+- [ ] The loop produces the failure mode the **user** described — not a different failure that happens to be nearby. Wrong bug = wrong fix.
+- [ ] The failure is reproducible across multiple runs (or, for non-deterministic bugs, reproducible at a high enough rate to debug against).
+- [ ] You have captured the exact symptom (error message, wrong output, slow timing) so later phases can verify the fix actually addresses it.
+
+### Minimise
+
+Once it's red, shrink the repro to the **smallest scenario that still goes red**. Cut inputs, callers, config, data, and steps **one at a time**, re-running the loop after each cut — keep only what's load-bearing for the failure.
+
+Why bother: a minimal repro shrinks the hypothesis space in Phase 3 (fewer moving parts left to suspect) and becomes the clean regression test in Phase 5.
+
+Done when **every remaining element is load-bearing** — removing any one of them makes the loop go green.
+
+Do not proceed until you have reproduced **and** minimised.
+
+## Phase 3 — Hypothesise
+
+Generate **3–5 ranked hypotheses** before testing any of them. Single-hypothesis generation anchors on the first plausible idea.
+
+Each hypothesis must be **falsifiable**: state the prediction it makes.
+
+> Format: "If <X> is the cause, then <changing Y> will make the bug disappear / <changing Z> will make it worse."
+
+If you cannot state the prediction, the hypothesis is a vibe — discard or sharpen it.
+
+**Show the ranked list to the user before testing.** They often have domain knowledge that re-ranks instantly ("we just deployed a change to #3"), or know hypotheses they've already ruled out. Cheap checkpoint, big time saver. Don't block on it — proceed with your ranking if the user is AFK.
+
+## Phase 4 — Instrument
+
+Each probe must map to a specific prediction from Phase 3. **Change one variable at a time.**
+
+Tool preference:
+
+1. **Debugger / REPL inspection** if the env supports it. One breakpoint beats ten logs.
+2. **Targeted logs** at the boundaries that distinguish hypotheses.
+3. Never "log everything and grep".
+
+**Tag every debug log** with a unique prefix, e.g. `[DEBUG-a4f2]`. Cleanup at the end becomes a single grep. Untagged logs survive; tagged logs die.
+
+**Perf branch.** For performance regressions, logs are usually wrong. Instead: establish a baseline measurement (timing harness, `performance.now()`, profiler, query plan), then bisect. Measure first, fix second.
+
+## Phase 5 — Fix + regression test
+
+Write the regression test **before the fix** — but only if there is a **correct seam** for it.
+
+A correct seam is one where the test exercises the **real bug pattern** as it occurs at the call site. If the only available seam is too shallow (single-caller test when the bug needs multiple callers, unit test that can't replicate the chain that triggered the bug), a regression test there gives false confidence.
+
+**If no correct seam exists, that itself is the finding.** Note it. The codebase architecture is preventing the bug from being locked down. Flag this for the next phase.
+
+If a correct seam exists:
+
+1. Turn the minimised repro into a failing test at that seam.
+2. Watch it fail.
+3. Apply the fix.
+4. Watch it pass.
+5. Re-run the Phase 1 feedback loop against the original (un-minimised) scenario.
+
+## Phase 6 — Cleanup + post-mortem
+
+Required before declaring done:
+
+- [ ] Original repro no longer reproduces (re-run the Phase 1 loop)
+- [ ] Regression test passes (or absence of seam is documented)
+- [ ] All `[DEBUG-...]` instrumentation removed (`grep` the prefix)
+- [ ] Throwaway prototypes deleted (or moved to a clearly-marked debug location)
+- [ ] The hypothesis that turned out correct is stated in the commit / PR message — so the next debugger learns
+
+**Then ask: what would have prevented this bug?** If the answer involves architectural change (no good test seam, tangled callers, hidden coupling) hand off to the `/improve-codebase-architecture` skill with the specifics. Make the recommendation **after** the fix is in, not before — you have more information now than when you started.

package/built-in-skills/diagnosing-bugs/references/desktop-dom/GUIDE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+# Desktop DOM and CSS Diagnosis
+
+Adapted from Hermes inspecting-hermes-desktop-dom; this is a supporting method,
+not an independent Hermes launch protocol.
+
+## Target and permissions
+
+Inspect the repository's actual Electron harness and startup configuration.
+Prismer uses apps/desktop with a prebuilt Vite WorkspaceShell. A web HMR update
+does not establish that the desktop renderer was rebuilt. Confirm the running
+build, PID, renderer URL and user-data directory before diagnosing stale UI.
+Do not assume Hermes dev-cdp.ts, eval.mjs, cdp.mjs, HERMES_DESKTOP_* or port 9222
+exist in Prismer. These helpers are not bundled here.
+
+Use the browser/CDP tool already exposed by the host, or an installed Playwright
+client connected to a user-authorized loopback CDP endpoint. List /json/version
+and /json/list for that exact port; match the renderer URL/title and PID. A port
+list is not permission to inspect another window. Never bind CDP publicly.
+If no endpoint is available, use the project's real harness in a new isolated
+instance with its own task-owned user-data directory and ports. Do not restart,
+kill or relaunch the user's app. Report blocked if an isolated harness is absent.
+
+## Read the rendered state
+
+First inspect a screenshot at the target viewport. Then query a narrow selector
+from actual DOM evidence. With an existing Playwright Page named page:
+
+```javascript
+const facts = await page.locator(selector).evaluate(el => ({
+  tag: el.tagName,
+  classes: el.className,
+  rect: el.getBoundingClientRect().toJSON(),
+  display: getComputedStyle(el).display,
+  padding: getComputedStyle(el).padding,
+  fontWeight: getComputedStyle(el).fontWeight,
+  parents: (() => {
+    const rows = [];
+    let node = el.parentElement;
+    while (node && rows.length < 6) {
+      rows.push({tag: node.tagName, classes: node.className});
+      node = node.parentElement;
+    }
+    return rows;
+  })()
+}));
+```
+
+Use the matching rule inspector for stylesheet origin/specificity. Inheritance,
+plugin styles and state selectors can override local utility classes; do not
+edit every call site before identifying the winning rule. Re-read computed style,
+geometry and screenshot after the change. Check mobile/desktop dimensions,
+keyboard focus, console and network failures. DOM facts do not replace visual QA.
+
+## Evidence and cleanup
+
+Record target identity, build, viewport, selector, expected/actual properties,
+the winning rule, screenshot and console errors. Avoid entire DOM dumps or
+session content containing secrets. A DevTools marker alone is not a paused
+exception: collect the stack and source map for runtime faults.
+
+Poll readiness with a bounded timeout. End only the test processes you started,
+detach without leaving the target paused, and preserve task-bound evidence.
+Never infer a broken port from an isolated app exiting due to missing backend
+configuration. No actual Electron/CDP live acceptance is implied by this guide.

package/built-in-skills/diagnosing-bugs/references/desktop-dom/LICENSE

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+MIT License
+
+Copyright (c) 2025 Nous Research
+
+Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
+of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
+in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
+to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
+copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
+furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
+
+The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
+copies or substantial portions of the Software.
+
+THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
+OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
+SOFTWARE.

package/built-in-skills/diagnosing-bugs/references/desktop-dom/NOTICE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+# Resource provenance
+
+## Engineering adaptation (2026-09-23)
+
+Source: https://github.com/NousResearch/hermes-agent/tree/1a1f4a59e252e1dc0137e7b2e7bcc8b0381d19c4/skills/software-development/inspecting-hermes-desktop-dom
+
+Upstream authors: Hermes Agent.
+Hermes MIT copyright (c) 2025 Nous Research is preserved in LICENSE.
+All bundled references/templates/scripts remain covered by that notice unless
+an additional license is explicitly supplied. External CLI binaries, services,
+accounts and downloaded assets are not redistributed by this skill and retain
+their own terms. No API keys or third-party runtime packages are bundled.
+
+Prismer modifications: unique discovery/ownership mapping where applicable,
+resource-path and authorization corrections, bounded helpers, honest readiness
+and verification states. See docs/bugfix223/implementation-engineering.md in the
+source repository for resource mapping, tests and remaining live acceptance.

package/built-in-skills/diagnosing-bugs/references/systematic-debugging/GUIDE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,410 @@
+---
+name: systematic-debugging
+description: "4-phase root cause debugging: understand bugs before fixing."
+version: 1.1.0
+author: Hermes Agent (adapted from obra/superpowers)
+license: MIT
+platforms: [linux, macos, windows]
+metadata:
+  hermes:
+    tags: [debugging, troubleshooting, problem-solving, root-cause, investigation]
+    related_skills: [test-driven-development, subagent-driven-development]
+---
+
+# 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.
+
+## The Feedback Loop Rule
+
+The feedback loop is the debugging work. Before reading code to build a theory, create or identify a **tight** command that can go red on the user's exact symptom and green when the bug is fixed. A tight loop is fast, deterministic, agent-runnable, and specific enough to catch this bug — not merely "doesn't crash".
+
+When a clean repro is hard, spend disproportionate effort building the loop. Guessing without a red-capable loop is the failure mode this skill exists to prevent.
+
+## 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)
+- Someone 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
+
+**Action:** Use `read_file` on the relevant source files. Use `search_files` to find the error string in the codebase.
+
+### 2. Build a Tight Feedback Loop
+
+- Can you trigger the user's exact symptom with one command?
+- Does the command fail for this bug and only pass once the bug is fixed?
+- Is it fast enough to run repeatedly?
+- Is it deterministic? For flaky bugs, can you raise the reproduction rate high enough to debug?
+- If not reproducible → gather more data, don't guess.
+
+**Ways to construct a loop — try in roughly this order:**
+
+1. **Failing test** at the seam that reaches the bug: unit, integration, or end-to-end.
+2. **HTTP script / curl** against a running dev server.
+3. **CLI invocation** with fixture input, diffing stdout/stderr against expected output.
+4. **Headless browser script** (Playwright/Puppeteer) asserting on DOM, console, or network.
+5. **Replay a captured trace**: HAR, request payload, event log, queue message, or webhook body.
+6. **Throwaway harness** that boots the smallest useful slice of the system and calls the failing path.
+7. **Property / fuzz loop** when the bug is intermittent wrong output over a broad input space.
+8. **Bisection harness** suitable for `git bisect run` when the bug appeared between two known states.
+9. **Differential loop** comparing old vs new version, two configs, two providers, or two datasets.
+10. **Human-in-the-loop script** only as a last resort: script the human steps and capture their result so the loop stays structured.
+
+**Tighten the loop once it exists:**
+
+- Make it faster: cache setup, narrow scope, skip unrelated initialization.
+- Make the signal sharper: assert the exact symptom, not generic success.
+- Make it more deterministic: pin time, seed randomness, isolate filesystem, freeze network.
+
+For non-deterministic bugs, the immediate goal is a higher reproduction rate, not perfection. Run the trigger 100x, parallelize, add stress, narrow timing windows, or inject sleeps. A 50% flake is debuggable; a 1% flake usually is not.
+
+**Action:** Use the `terminal` tool to run the tight loop:
+
+```bash
+# Run a specific failing test
+pytest tests/test_module.py::test_name -v
+
+# Or run a scripted repro
+python scripts/repro_bug.py
+
+# Or run a high-repetition flaky repro
+for i in {1..100}; do pytest tests/test_flake.py::test_name -q || break; done
+```
+
+### 3. Check Recent Changes
+
+- What changed that could cause this?
+- Git diff, recent commits
+- New dependencies, config changes
+
+**Action:**
+
+```bash
+# Recent commits
+git log --oneline -10
+
+# Uncommitted changes
+git diff
+
+# Changes in specific file
+git log -p --follow src/problematic_file.py | head -100
+```
+
+### 4. Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems
+
+**WHEN system has multiple components (API → service → database, CI → build → deploy):**
+
+**BEFORE proposing fixes, add diagnostic instrumentation:**
+
+For EACH component boundary:
+- Log what data enters the component
+- Log what data exits the component
+- Verify environment/config propagation
+- Check state at each layer
+
+Run once to gather evidence showing WHERE it breaks.
+THEN analyze evidence to identify the failing component.
+THEN investigate that specific component.
+
+### 5. Trace Data Flow
+
+**WHEN error is deep in the call stack:**
+
+- Where does the bad value originate?
+- What called this function with the bad value?
+- Keep tracing upstream until you find the source
+- Fix at the source, not at the symptom
+
+**Action:** Use `search_files` to trace references:
+
+```python
+# Find where the function is called
+search_files("function_name(", path="src/", file_glob="*.py")
+
+# Find where the variable is set
+search_files("variable_name\\s*=", path="src/", file_glob="*.py")
+```
+
+### Phase 1 Completion Checklist
+
+- [ ] Error messages fully read and understood
+- [ ] A tight loop command exists and has been run at least once
+- [ ] Loop is red-capable: it asserts the user's exact symptom, not a nearby failure
+- [ ] Loop is deterministic, or a flaky bug has a high enough reproduction rate to debug
+- [ ] Recent changes identified and reviewed
+- [ ] Evidence gathered (logs, state, data flow)
+- [ ] Problem isolated to specific component/code
+- [ ] Root cause hypotheses can be stated and tested
+
+**STOP:** Do not proceed to Phase 2 until you understand WHY it's happening.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 2: Pattern Analysis
+
+**Find the pattern before fixing:**
+
+### 0. Minimize the Reproduction
+
+Once the loop is red, shrink the repro to the smallest scenario that still goes red. Cut inputs, callers, config, data, and steps **one at a time**, re-running the loop after each cut. Keep only what is load-bearing for the failure.
+
+Done when removing any remaining element makes the loop go green. A minimal repro narrows the hypothesis space and often becomes the cleanest regression test.
+
+### 1. Find Working Examples
+
+- Locate similar working code in the same codebase
+- What works that's similar to what's broken?
+
+**Action:** Use `search_files` to find comparable patterns:
+
+```python
+search_files("similar_pattern", path="src/", file_glob="*.py")
+```
+
+### 2. Compare Against References
+
+- If implementing a pattern, read the 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 Ranked Falsifiable Hypotheses
+
+- Generate 3–5 plausible hypotheses before testing any single one.
+- Rank them by likelihood and cheapness to falsify.
+- State the prediction each hypothesis makes: "If X is the cause, then changing or observing Y should make Z happen."
+- Discard or sharpen any hypothesis that does not make a testable prediction.
+
+If the user is present, show the ranked list before testing. They may have domain knowledge that instantly re-ranks it. If the user is AFK, proceed with your ranking.
+
+### 2. Test Minimally
+
+- Test the highest-ranked hypothesis with the smallest possible probe.
+- Change one variable at a time.
+- Don't fix multiple things at once.
+- Prefer debugger/REPL inspection when available; one breakpoint beats ten logs.
+- If you add logs, tag every temporary line with a unique prefix such as `[DEBUG-a4f2]` so cleanup is a single search.
+
+### 3. Verify Before Continuing
+
+- Did it work? → 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 the user 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
+- Use the `test-driven-development` skill
+
+### 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
+
+```bash
+# Run the specific regression test
+pytest tests/test_module.py::test_regression -v
+
+# Run full suite — no regressions
+pytest tests/ -q
+```
+
+### 4. If Fix Doesn't Work — The Rule of Three
+
+- **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 an architectural problem:**
+- Each fix reveals new shared state/coupling in a 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 the architecture vs. continue fixing symptoms?
+
+**Discuss with the user 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 a new problem in a different place**
+
+**ALL of these mean: STOP. Return to Phase 1.**
+
+**If 3+ fixes failed:** Question the architecture (Phase 4 step 5).
+
+## 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 the pattern, don't fix again. |
+
+## Quick Reference
+
+| Phase | Key Activities | Success Criteria |
+|-------|---------------|------------------|
+| **1. Root Cause** | Read errors, reproduce, check changes, gather evidence, trace data flow | Understand WHAT and WHY |
+| **2. Pattern** | Find working examples, compare, identify differences | Know what's different |
+| **3. Hypothesis** | Form theory, test minimally, one variable at a time | Confirmed or new hypothesis |
+| **4. Implementation** | Create regression test, fix root cause, verify | Bug resolved, all tests pass |
+
+## Hermes Agent Integration
+
+### Investigation Tools
+
+Use these Hermes tools during Phase 1:
+
+- **`search_files`** — Find error strings, trace function calls, locate patterns
+- **`read_file`** — Read source code with line numbers for precise analysis
+- **`terminal`** — Run tests, check git history, reproduce bugs
+- **`web_search`/`web_extract`** — Research error messages, library docs
+
+### With delegate_task
+
+For complex multi-component debugging, dispatch investigation subagents:
+
+```python
+delegate_task(
+    goal="Investigate why [specific test/behavior] fails",
+    context="""
+    Follow systematic-debugging skill:
+    1. Read the error message carefully
+    2. Reproduce the issue
+    3. Trace the data flow to find root cause
+    4. Report findings — do NOT fix yet
+
+    Error: [paste full error]
+    File: [path to failing code]
+    Test command: [exact command]
+    """,
+    toolsets=['terminal', 'file']
+)
+```
+
+### With test-driven-development
+
+When fixing bugs:
+1. Write a test that reproduces the bug (RED)
+2. Debug systematically to find root cause
+3. Fix the root cause (GREEN)
+4. The test proves the fix and prevents regression
+
+## Evidence and sensitive data
+
+Record only the smallest inputs/outputs needed to test the hypothesis. Redact
+tokens, tenant identifiers, PII and configuration secrets before logging or
+sharing. Never dump complete environment/Nacos/session state. Use the project's
+actual test runner and source map, not a Hermes-specific wrapper by assumption.
+Report measured reproduction and repair results; there is no validated universal
+time saving or first-time-fix percentage attached to this method.

package/built-in-skills/diagnosing-bugs/references/systematic-debugging/LICENSE

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+MIT License
+
+Copyright (c) 2025 Nous Research
+
+Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
+of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
+in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
+to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
+copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
+furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
+
+The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
+copies or substantial portions of the Software.
+
+THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
+OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
+SOFTWARE.