claude-mpm 4.15.6__py3-none-any.whl → 4.21.0__py3-none-any.whl

claude_mpm/skills/bundled/collaboration/dispatching-parallel-agents/references/troubleshooting.md

@@ -0,0 +1,730 @@
+# Troubleshooting
+
+Complete guide to handling conflicts, verification strategies, and resolving common problems in parallel agent dispatch.
+
+## Conflict Detection
+
+### File-Level Conflicts
+
+**Symptom:** Multiple agents modified the same file
+
+**Detection:**
+```bash
+# After agent returns, check which files changed
+git diff --name-only
+
+# Compare with other agents' file lists
+# If overlap exists → conflict potential
+```
+
+**Resolution strategy:**
+
+```
+Level 1: Non-overlapping changes
+- Agent A changed lines 10-20
+- Agent B changed lines 50-60
+→ Git auto-merge handles this
+→ Verify: Run tests after merge
+
+Level 2: Nearby changes
+- Agent A changed lines 10-20
+- Agent B changed lines 25-35
+→ Git might merge, but logic conflict possible
+→ Verify: Review both changes for interaction
+→ Test: Run full suite, check edge cases
+
+Level 3: Overlapping changes
+- Agent A changed lines 10-20
+- Agent B changed lines 15-25
+→ Git merge conflict
+→ Verify: Understand both changes
+→ Resolve: Manual merge or redesign
+```
+
+### Logic-Level Conflicts
+
+**Symptom:** No merge conflicts, but changes interact poorly
+
+**Example:**
+```javascript
+// Agent A changed function signature
+function processPayment(userId, amount) { ... }
+// Previously: processPayment(amount)
+
+// Agent B added calls using old signature
+processPayment(100); // Now breaks!
+```
+
+**Detection strategy:**
+
+1. **Review all agent summaries** before integrating
+2. **Identify interface changes** (function signatures, API contracts)
+3. **Check if other agents** use those interfaces
+4. **Run full test suite** after each integration
+5. **Watch for new failures** in code you didn't touch
+
+**Prevention:**
+
+```markdown
+Agent prompts should specify:
+
+Constraints:
+- Do NOT change public interfaces without coordination
+- Do NOT modify shared utilities
+- If you must change a signature, report it before implementing
+```
+
+### State-Level Conflicts
+
+**Symptom:** Tests pass individually but fail when integrated
+
+**Example:**
+```
+Agent A: Clears cache on startup
+Agent B: Expects cache to be populated
+
+Individually:
+- Agent A tests: Cache clearing works ✓
+- Agent B tests: Cache usage works ✓
+
+Together:
+- Agent B tests fail: Cache is empty ✗
+```
+
+**Detection:**
+```bash
+# Test each agent's changes in isolation
+git checkout agent-A-branch
+npm test # Pass ✓
+
+git checkout agent-B-branch
+npm test # Pass ✓
+
+# Test integrated
+git checkout integration-branch
+npm test # Fail ✗ → State conflict detected
+```
+
+**Resolution:**
+1. Understand state assumptions each agent made
+2. Determine correct initialization order
+3. Add explicit state setup in tests
+4. Or refactor to remove shared state dependency
+
+## Verification Strategies
+
+### Strategy 1: Progressive Integration
+
+**Approach:** Integrate one agent at a time, verify between each
+
+```bash
+# Start from clean main
+git checkout main
+
+# Integrate Agent 1
+git merge agent-1-fixes
+npm test # Verify Agent 1 only
+# If pass: continue
+# If fail: fix Agent 1 before integrating others
+
+# Integrate Agent 2
+git merge agent-2-fixes
+npm test # Verify Agent 1 + 2
+# If pass: continue
+# If fail: identify which combination breaks
+
+# Integrate Agent 3
+git merge agent-3-fixes
+npm test # Verify all 3
+```
+
+**Benefits:**
+- Isolates which integration causes failures
+- Easier to debug conflicts
+- Clear rollback points
+
+**Cost:**
+- More integration steps
+- Takes longer than all-at-once
+
+**Use when:** High risk of conflicts, complex changes
+
+### Strategy 2: Parallel Verification
+
+**Approach:** Verify each agent's changes in parallel, then integrate all
+
+```bash
+# Parallel verification (can run simultaneously)
+# Terminal 1
+git checkout agent-1-fixes
+npm test # Verify Agent 1 in isolation
+
+# Terminal 2
+git checkout agent-2-fixes
+npm test # Verify Agent 2 in isolation
+
+# Terminal 3
+git checkout agent-3-fixes
+npm test # Verify Agent 3 in isolation
+
+# After all pass individually
+git checkout integration-branch
+git merge agent-1-fixes agent-2-fixes agent-3-fixes
+npm test # Verify integrated
+```
+
+**Benefits:**
+- Fast verification of individual agents
+- All agents validated before integration
+- Clear that issues are integration-specific
+
+**Cost:**
+- Integration failures are harder to isolate
+- Might need to back out and use progressive approach
+
+**Use when:** Low risk of conflicts, well-scoped agents
+
+### Strategy 3: Staged Integration
+
+**Approach:** Group related agents, integrate by groups
+
+```bash
+# Group 1: Test fixes (low conflict risk)
+git merge agent-1-test-fixes agent-2-test-fixes
+npm test
+
+# Group 2: Implementation changes (higher conflict risk)
+git merge agent-3-impl-changes
+npm test
+
+# Group 3: Refactoring (highest conflict risk)
+git merge agent-4-refactor
+npm test
+```
+
+**Benefits:**
+- Balances speed and safety
+- Groups likely-compatible changes
+- Easier conflict isolation than all-at-once
+
+**Use when:** Mixed risk levels across agents
+
+## Common Problems
+
+### Problem 1: Agent Changed Too Much
+
+**Symptom:**
+```
+Agent task: "Fix login.test.ts (3 tests)"
+Agent result: Changed 12 files, refactored auth module
+```
+
+**Why this happened:**
+- Prompt was too vague
+- No constraints specified
+- Agent "improved" code beyond scope
+
+**Immediate fix:**
+1. Review changes - which are necessary for the task?
+2. Extract only required changes
+3. Discard "improvements" outside scope
+
+**Prevention:**
+```markdown
+Better prompt:
+
+Fix the 3 failing tests in login.test.ts.
+
+Allowed changes:
+- login.service.ts (if bug found)
+- login.test.ts (if test expectations wrong)
+
+NOT allowed:
+- Other files in auth module
+- Refactoring
+- Code style changes
+
+Stay focused on making the 3 tests pass.
+```
+
+### Problem 2: Agent Didn't Explain Changes
+
+**Symptom:**
+```
+Agent: "Fixed the tests ✓"
+You: "What did you change?"
+Agent: [no summary provided]
+```
+
+**Immediate fix:**
+1. Review git diff manually
+2. Understand each change
+3. Ask agent to explain (in follow-up)
+
+**Prevention:**
+```markdown
+Agent prompt must include:
+
+Return:
+- Root cause explanation
+- List of files changed with brief explanation EACH
+- How you verified the fix
+- Any risks or edge cases
+
+Do NOT just say "fixed" - I need to understand what changed.
+```
+
+### Problem 3: Agents Have Conflicting Approaches
+
+**Symptom:**
+```
+Agent A: Fixed race condition by adding mutex locks
+Agent B: Fixed race condition by making operation synchronous
+
+Both approaches work individually but conflict when integrated
+```
+
+**Why this happened:**
+- Agents made independent architectural decisions
+- No coordination on approach
+- Both valid but incompatible
+
+**Resolution:**
+1. **Evaluate approaches:**
+   - Which is more aligned with codebase patterns?
+   - Which has better performance/correctness?
+   - Which has fewer side effects?
+
+2. **Choose one approach:**
+   - Discard the other agent's changes
+   - Or merge best parts of both
+
+3. **Re-test with chosen approach:**
+   - Verify all original issues resolved
+   - Ensure no new issues introduced
+
+**Prevention:**
+```markdown
+For architectural decisions, use two-phase approach:
+
+Phase 1: Investigate and propose
+- Agents research problem
+- Agents propose solutions
+- Coordinator reviews and aligns approaches
+
+Phase 2: Implement approved solutions
+- Agents implement with aligned approach
+- No architectural conflicts
+```
+
+### Problem 4: Integration Introduces New Failures
+
+**Symptom:**
+```
+Agent 1 tests: Pass ✓
+Agent 2 tests: Pass ✓
+Agent 3 tests: Pass ✓
+
+Integrated: Agent 1 & 2 tests pass, but Agent 3 tests fail ✗
+```
+
+**Diagnosis process:**
+
+```bash
+# Identify which combination breaks
+git checkout main
+git merge agent-1-fixes # Test → Pass ✓
+git merge agent-2-fixes # Test → Pass ✓
+# So far so good
+
+git merge agent-3-fixes # Test → Fail ✗
+# Agent 3 conflicts with Agent 1 + 2 integration
+
+# Isolate the conflict
+# Test Agent 3 with each individually
+git checkout main
+git merge agent-1-fixes agent-3-fixes # Test → ?
+git checkout main
+git merge agent-2-fixes agent-3-fixes # Test → ?
+
+# Identify which specific interaction breaks
+```
+
+**Common causes:**
+
+1. **Initialization order dependency**
+   ```
+   Agent 1 & 2 changed initialization order
+   Agent 3 assumes old order
+   → Solution: Update Agent 3 to new order
+   ```
+
+2. **Shared state assumption**
+   ```
+   Agent 1 & 2 now clear state between tests
+   Agent 3 assumes state persists
+   → Solution: Update Agent 3 to set up its state
+   ```
+
+3. **Interface change**
+   ```
+   Agent 1 changed function signature
+   Agent 3 uses old signature
+   → Solution: Update Agent 3 calls to new signature
+   ```
+
+### Problem 5: Can't Reproduce Agent's Success
+
+**Symptom:**
+```
+Agent: "All tests pass ✓"
+You integrate: Tests fail ✗
+```
+
+**Possible causes:**
+
+1. **Agent ran subset of tests**
+   ```
+   Agent ran: npm test login.test.ts
+   You ran: npm test (all tests)
+
+   Agent's tests pass, but broke other tests
+   ```
+
+2. **Environment difference**
+   ```
+   Agent: Used cached dependencies
+   You: Fresh install
+
+   Or vice versa
+   ```
+
+3. **State pollution**
+   ```
+   Agent: Tests passed in specific order
+   You: Tests run in different order
+
+   Agent's tests depend on state from previous tests
+   ```
+
+**Debugging steps:**
+
+```bash
+# 1. Exact reproduction
+Run EXACTLY what agent ran:
+- Same test command
+- Same working directory
+- Same git commit
+
+# 2. Expand scope
+Run broader test suite:
+npm test # All tests
+npm test --runInBand # Sequential execution
+npm test --randomize # Random order
+
+# 3. Clean environment
+rm -rf node_modules package-lock.json
+npm install
+npm test
+
+# 4. Check for state
+npm test -- --forceExit # Kill process after tests
+npm test -- --detectOpenHandles # Find state leaks
+```
+
+## Verification Checklist
+
+### Pre-Integration
+
+Before integrating any agent's work:
+
+```
+□ Agent provided clear summary of changes
+□ Root cause explained and makes sense
+□ Changed files list reviewed
+□ Changes are within assigned scope
+□ No unexpected files modified
+□ No public interface changes (or coordinated if needed)
+□ Agent verified their tests pass
+```
+
+### During Integration
+
+While integrating each agent:
+
+```
+□ Git merge conflicts resolved correctly
+□ Both agents' logic preserved (not just picked one side)
+□ Ran tests after resolving conflicts
+□ No new warnings or errors introduced
+□ Code style consistent (linting passes)
+```
+
+### Post-Integration
+
+After all agents integrated:
+
+```
+□ Full test suite passes
+□ No new failures in unrelated tests
+□ Performance hasn't degraded (if relevant)
+□ All original issues resolved
+□ No regressions introduced
+□ Code review completed (if team process)
+```
+
+## Recovery Procedures
+
+### Procedure 1: Rollback Individual Agent
+
+**When:** One agent's changes cause issues
+
+```bash
+# Identify problematic agent
+git log --oneline
+
+# Revert that agent's merge
+git revert -m 1 <merge-commit-hash>
+
+# Or reset if not pushed yet
+git reset --hard HEAD~1
+
+# Re-test without that agent
+npm test
+
+# Fix or re-do that agent's work
+```
+
+### Procedure 2: Start Over with Integration
+
+**When:** Multiple conflicts, unclear which combination breaks
+
+```bash
+# Save all agent branches
+git branch agent-1-fixes-backup agent-1-fixes
+git branch agent-2-fixes-backup agent-2-fixes
+git branch agent-3-fixes-backup agent-3-fixes
+
+# Reset integration branch
+git checkout integration
+git reset --hard main
+
+# Try progressive integration instead of all-at-once
+# (See Strategy 1: Progressive Integration)
+```
+
+### Procedure 3: Rebase and Retry
+
+**When:** Conflicts due to diverged branches
+
+```bash
+# Update all agent branches from main
+git checkout agent-1-fixes
+git rebase main
+
+git checkout agent-2-fixes
+git rebase main
+
+git checkout agent-3-fixes
+git rebase main
+
+# Now integrate with updated branches
+# Conflicts should be reduced
+```
+
+## Advanced Conflict Resolution
+
+### Conflict Type 1: Competing Implementations
+
+**Scenario:**
+```javascript
+// Agent A's approach: Add caching layer
+async function fetchUser(id) {
+  const cached = cache.get(id);
+  if (cached) return cached;
+  const user = await db.query(id);
+  cache.set(id, user);
+  return user;
+}
+
+// Agent B's approach: Optimize database query
+async function fetchUser(id) {
+  return await db.query(id, {
+    include: ['profile', 'settings'] // Single query vs N+1
+  });
+}
+```
+
+**Resolution:**
+1. **Understand goals:**
+   - Agent A: Reduce database load
+   - Agent B: Reduce query count
+
+2. **Evaluate compatibility:**
+   - Can we do both?
+   - Are they solving same problem differently?
+
+3. **Best approach:**
+   ```javascript
+   // Combined: Optimized query + caching
+   async function fetchUser(id) {
+     const cached = cache.get(id);
+     if (cached) return cached;
+     const user = await db.query(id, {
+       include: ['profile', 'settings']
+     });
+     cache.set(id, user);
+     return user;
+   }
+   ```
+
+### Conflict Type 2: Test Expectations
+
+**Scenario:**
+```javascript
+// Agent A: Made function async
+async function validateEmail(email) { ... }
+
+// Agent B: Test expects synchronous
+test('validates email', () => {
+  const result = validateEmail('test@example.com');
+  expect(result).toBe(true); // Fails: result is Promise
+});
+```
+
+**Resolution:**
+1. **Identify which is correct:**
+   - Should function be async? (Agent A)
+   - Or should test be updated? (Agent B)
+
+2. **Fix approach:**
+   ```javascript
+   // Update test to handle async
+   test('validates email', async () => {
+     const result = await validateEmail('test@example.com');
+     expect(result).toBe(true);
+   });
+   ```
+
+### Conflict Type 3: Shared Utility Changes
+
+**Scenario:**
+```javascript
+// Shared utility
+function formatDate(date) { ... }
+
+// Agent A: Changed signature to add timezone
+function formatDate(date, timezone) { ... }
+
+// Agent B: Added calls without timezone
+const formatted = formatDate(new Date()); // Breaks!
+```
+
+**Resolution options:**
+
+**Option 1: Backward compatible**
+```javascript
+function formatDate(date, timezone = 'UTC') {
+  // Default timezone maintains backward compatibility
+}
+```
+
+**Option 2: Update Agent B's calls**
+```javascript
+// Find all Agent B's calls and update
+const formatted = formatDate(new Date(), 'UTC');
+```
+
+**Option 3: Coordination**
+```markdown
+Prevention: Agent prompts should say:
+"Do NOT change shared utilities. If needed, coordinate first."
+```
+
+## Monitoring Integration Health
+
+### Health Indicators
+
+**Green (healthy integration):**
+```
+✓ All agents completed on time
+✓ All summaries clear and detailed
+✓ No file overlaps between agents
+✓ All individual tests pass
+✓ Full suite passes after integration
+✓ No new warnings or errors
+✓ Integration took <10 min
+```
+
+**Yellow (caution):**
+```
+⚠ Some agents took longer than expected
+⚠ Minor file overlaps (non-conflicting)
+⚠ Had to resolve 1-2 merge conflicts
+⚠ Integration took 10-20 min
+⚠ Found one unexpected test failure (quickly fixed)
+```
+
+**Red (problematic integration):**
+```
+✗ Multiple agents overlapped significantly
+✗ Many merge conflicts
+✗ Logic conflicts (no git conflicts but breaks)
+✗ New test failures in unrelated code
+✗ Integration took >30 min
+✗ Had to rollback and restart
+```
+
+### Post-Mortem Template
+
+After problematic integration:
+
+```markdown
+## What Went Wrong
+
+[Describe the issue]
+
+## Root Cause
+
+[Why did this happen?]
+- Unclear scope definition?
+- Missed dependency?
+- Agents made incompatible decisions?
+
+## What We Learned
+
+[Specific learnings from this incident]
+
+## Prevention Strategy
+
+[How to prevent this in future dispatches]
+- Better prompt structure?
+- More investigation before dispatch?
+- Different grouping of problems?
+
+## Action Items
+
+[Concrete changes to process]
+```
+
+## Best Practices
+
+### Do's
+
+✓ **Verify independence** before dispatching
+✓ **Define clear scopes** for each agent
+✓ **Request detailed summaries** from agents
+✓ **Integrate progressively** when high risk
+✓ **Test after each integration** step
+✓ **Document conflicts** and resolutions
+✓ **Learn from issues** and improve process
+
+### Don'ts
+
+✗ **Don't dispatch without investigation** if independence unclear
+✗ **Don't allow vague prompts** ("fix the issues")
+✗ **Don't integrate blindly** without reviewing summaries
+✗ **Don't skip verification** steps to save time
+✗ **Don't ignore warning signs** (overlapping files, etc.)
+✗ **Don't let agents change shared code** without coordination
+✗ **Don't forget to run full suite** after integration