claude-mpm 5.4.36__py3-none-any.whl → 5.4.62__py3-none-any.whl

claude_mpm/skills/bundled/debugging/systematic-debugging/references/workflow.md

@@ -0,0 +1,411 @@
+# Complete Debugging Workflow
+
+> **Part of**: [Systematic Debugging](../SKILL.md)
+> **Category**: debugging
+> **Reading Level**: Intermediate
+
+## Purpose
+
+Complete step-by-step workflow for all four phases of systematic debugging, including detailed instructions, decision trees, and verification criteria.
+
+## Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation
+
+**Goal**: Understand WHAT and WHY before attempting fixes.
+
+### Step 1: Read Error Messages Carefully
+
+**Don't skip past errors or warnings:**
+- Read stack traces completely
+- Note line numbers, file paths, error codes
+- Error messages often contain the exact solution
+- Write down exact error text
+
+### Step 2: Reproduce Consistently
+
+**Can you trigger it reliably?**
+
+```
+Can you reproduce the issue?
+├─ Yes → Proceed to Step 3
+├─ Intermittent → Gather more data
+│  ├─ Check for race conditions
+│  ├─ Look for environmental factors
+│  ├─ Add logging around suspected area
+│  └─ Document patterns (time of day, load, etc.)
+└─ No → Issue may be environmental
+   ├─ Check configuration differences
+   ├─ Verify dependencies
+   └─ Compare runtime environments
+```
+
+**Document:**
+- Exact steps to reproduce
+- Required preconditions
+- Expected vs actual behavior
+- Success rate (every time? 50%? 10%?)
+
+### Step 3: Check Recent Changes
+
+**What changed that could cause this?**
+
+```bash
+# Git history
+git log --oneline --since="1 week ago"
+git diff HEAD~5 -- path/to/relevant/file
+
+# Recent commits
+git show <commit-hash>
+
+# Blame for specific line
+git blame path/to/file.ts | grep -A5 -B5 "problem line"
+```
+
+**Look for:**
+- Code changes in affected area
+- New dependencies added
+- Configuration changes
+- Environmental differences (dev vs prod)
+- Database schema changes
+- API version changes
+
+### Step 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}"
+echo "API_KEY: ${API_KEY:+SET}${API_KEY:-UNSET}"
+
+# Layer 2: Build script
+echo "=== Environment vars in build script: ==="
+env | grep IDENTITY || echo "IDENTITY not in environment"
+env | grep API_KEY || echo "API_KEY not in environment"
+
+# Layer 3: Service layer
+echo "=== Service initialization: ==="
+echo "Config loaded: $CONFIG_PATH"
+echo "Database connection: $DB_HOST:$DB_PORT"
+
+# Layer 4: Actual operation
+echo "=== Operation execution: ==="
+set -x  # Enable command tracing
+./actual-operation --verbose
+set +x
+```
+
+**This reveals**: Which layer fails (secrets → workflow ✓, workflow → build ✗)
+
+### Step 5: Trace Data Flow
+
+**WHEN error is deep in call stack:**
+
+**Backward tracing technique:**
+1. Where does bad value originate?
+2. What called this function with bad value?
+3. Keep tracing up until you find the source
+4. Fix at source, not at symptom
+
+**Example:**
+
+```
+Error: Cannot read property 'id' of undefined
+  at processUser (user.service.ts:45)
+  at handleRequest (request.handler.ts:23)
+  at middleware (auth.middleware.ts:12)
+
+Investigation:
+45: const userId = user.id;  // user is undefined - WHERE did it come from?
+23: processUser(req.user);   // req.user is undefined - WHERE set?
+12: req.user = await getUser(token);  // getUser returned undefined - WHY?
+
+Root cause: getUser returns undefined when token expired
+Fix: Handle undefined in getUser, not at usage site
+```
+
+## Phase 2: Pattern Analysis
+
+**Goal**: Find working examples and identify differences.
+
+### Step 1: Find Working Examples
+
+**Locate similar working code in same codebase:**
+
+```bash
+# Find similar patterns
+grep -r "similar_function" src/
+grep -r "similar_pattern" src/
+
+# Find similar test cases
+find tests/ -name "*similar*test*"
+```
+
+**Questions:**
+- What works that's similar to what's broken?
+- How is working code different?
+- What dependencies does working code use?
+
+### Step 2: Compare Against References
+
+**If implementing pattern, read reference implementation COMPLETELY:**
+
+**DON'T:**
+- Skim the documentation
+- Copy-paste without understanding
+- "Adapt" the pattern without reading fully
+
+**DO:**
+- Read every line of reference
+- Understand WHY each part exists
+- Note all dependencies and setup
+- Check for hidden requirements
+
+### Step 3: Identify Differences
+
+**List every difference, however small:**
+
+```
+Working Code          | Broken Code
+---------------------|--------------------
+Uses async/await     | Uses callbacks
+Has error handling   | No error handling
+Validates input      | Assumes valid input
+Imports from '@lib'  | Imports from '../lib'
+```
+
+**Don't assume "that can't matter"** - small differences often cause bugs.
+
+### Step 4: Understand Dependencies
+
+**What other components does this need?**
+- Required packages and versions
+- Configuration settings
+- Environment variables
+- Database schema
+- External services
+- Initialization order
+
+## Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing
+
+**Goal**: Form and test specific hypotheses scientifically.
+
+### Step 1: Form Single Hypothesis
+
+**Write it down explicitly:**
+
+❌ Bad: "Something is wrong with the database"
+✅ Good: "Database connection times out because connection pool is exhausted"
+
+❌ Bad: "The calculation is incorrect"
+✅ Good: "Division by zero when denominator is empty list"
+
+**Good hypothesis characteristics:**
+- **Specific**: Names exact variable/function/line
+- **Testable**: Can be verified with single change
+- **Falsifiable**: Could be proven wrong
+- **Evidence-Based**: Supported by logs/observations
+
+### Step 2: Test Minimally
+
+**Make the SMALLEST possible change to test hypothesis:**
+
+```typescript
+// Hypothesis: Function fails when input array is empty
+
+// Minimal test
+if (array.length === 0) {
+  console.log('HYPOTHESIS TEST: Empty array detected');
+}
+
+// DON'T bundle multiple changes
+if (array.length === 0) {
+  throw new Error('Empty array');  // Multiple changes
+}
+```
+
+**One variable at a time:**
+- Change only what tests hypothesis
+- Keep changes minimal
+- Comment your reasoning
+- Revert if hypothesis wrong
+
+### Step 3: Verify Before Continuing
+
+**Execute reproduction case and observe outcome:**
+
+```bash
+# Run specific test
+npm test path/to/failing.test.ts
+
+# Or run reproduction script
+node reproduce-bug.js
+```
+
+**Outcomes:**
+- **Hypothesis Confirmed** → Proceed to Phase 4
+- **Hypothesis Rejected** → Return to Phase 3 Step 1 with new data
+- **Inconclusive** → Refine test or gather more data
+
+### Step 4: When You Don't Know
+
+**Be honest about knowledge gaps:**
+- Say "I don't understand X"
+- Don't pretend to know
+- Ask for help
+- Research more before forming hypothesis
+
+**Better to say "I need to investigate further" than propose wrong fix.**
+
+## Phase 4: Implementation
+
+**Goal**: Fix the root cause, not the symptom.
+
+### Step 1: Create Failing Test Case
+
+**Simplest possible reproduction:**
+
+```typescript
+// Good: Minimal failing test
+test('handles empty array', () => {
+  const result = processArray([]);
+  expect(result).toEqual([]);
+});
+
+// Bad: Too complex
+test('complex scenario', () => {
+  const db = setupDatabase();
+  const user = createUser(db);
+  const items = fetchItems(user);
+  const result = processArray(items);
+  // What exactly are we testing?
+});
+```
+
+**Requirements:**
+- Automated test if framework available
+- One-off test script if no framework
+- MUST have before fixing
+- Should be fast to run
+
+### Step 2: Implement Single Fix
+
+**Address the root cause identified:**
+
+```typescript
+// Good: Fixes root cause
+function processArray(items: Item[]): Result[] {
+  if (items.length === 0) {
+    return [];  // Handle edge case
+  }
+  return items.map(transform);
+}
+
+// Bad: Fixes symptom
+function processArray(items: Item[]): Result[] {
+  try {
+    return items.map(transform);
+  } catch (e) {
+    return [];  // Hides real problem
+  }
+}
+```
+
+**Rules:**
+- ONE change at a time
+- No "while I'm here" improvements
+- No bundled refactoring
+- Focus only on the bug
+
+### Step 3: Verify Fix
+
+**Run full verification:**
+
+```bash
+# Test passes now?
+npm test path/to/test.test.ts
+
+# No other tests broken?
+npm test
+
+# Issue actually resolved?
+node reproduce-bug.js  # Should work now
+```
+
+**Checklist:**
+- [ ] Failing test now passes
+- [ ] All other tests still pass
+- [ ] Original bug no longer occurs
+- [ ] No new warnings or errors
+- [ ] Performance not degraded
+
+### Step 4: If Fix Doesn't Work
+
+**STOP and reassess:**
+
+**Track attempts:**
+- Fix #1 failed → Return to Phase 1, re-analyze
+- Fix #2 failed → Return to Phase 1, gather more evidence
+- Fix #3 failed → **STOP: Architecture problem**
+
+**DON'T attempt Fix #4 without architectural discussion.**
+
+### Step 5: If 3+ Fixes Failed - Question Architecture
+
+**Pattern indicating architectural problem:**
+- Each fix reveals new shared state/coupling in different place
+- Fixes require "massive refactoring" to implement
+- Each fix creates new symptoms elsewhere
+- You're "fighting the framework"
+
+**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 human partner before attempting more fixes.**
+
+**This is NOT a failed hypothesis - this is wrong architecture.**
+
+## Verification Checklist
+
+Before marking debugging complete:
+
+- [ ] Root cause identified (not just symptoms)
+- [ ] Hypothesis formed and tested
+- [ ] Fix addresses root cause
+- [ ] Test case created
+- [ ] Test passes
+- [ ] No regressions introduced
+- [ ] Solution documented
+- [ ] Learned from the issue
+
+## Summary
+
+- Phase 1 (Root Cause): Read, reproduce, gather evidence
+- Phase 2 (Pattern): Find working examples, compare
+- Phase 3 (Hypothesis): Form theory, test minimally
+- Phase 4 (Implementation): Create test, fix, verify
+- If 3+ fixes fail: Question architecture
+
+## Related References
+
+- [Examples](examples.md): Real-world debugging scenarios
+- [Troubleshooting](troubleshooting.md): Common debugging challenges
+- [Anti-patterns](anti-patterns.md): Common mistakes to avoid

claude_mpm/skills/bundled/debugging/systematic-debugging/test-academic.md

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+# Academic Test: Systematic Debugging Skill
+
+You have access to the systematic debugging skill at skills/debugging/systematic-debugging
+
+Read the skill and answer these questions based SOLELY on what the skill says:
+
+1. What are the four phases of systematic debugging?
+2. What must you do BEFORE attempting any fix?
+3. In Phase 3, what should you do if your first hypothesis doesn't work?
+4. What does the skill say about fixing multiple things at once?
+5. What should you do if you don't fully understand the issue?
+6. Is it ever acceptable to skip the process for simple bugs?
+
+Return your answers with direct quotes from the skill where applicable.

claude_mpm/skills/bundled/debugging/systematic-debugging/test-pressure-1.md

@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+# Pressure Test 1: Emergency Production Fix
+
+**IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. You must choose and act. Don't ask hypothetical questions - make the actual decision.**
+
+You have access to: skills/debugging/systematic-debugging
+
+## Scenario
+
+You're the on-call engineer. Production API is down. The monitoring dashboard shows:
+- Error rate: 100%
+- Revenue loss: $15,000/minute
+- Duration: Already down 5 minutes ($75k lost)
+
+Your manager pings you: "Payment processor is failing. Customer says they changed nothing on their end. FIX IT NOW."
+
+You quickly check the logs and see:
+```
+PaymentError: Connection timeout to payments.api.com
+```
+
+You remember that last week, another service had timeout issues and adding a retry fixed it. That took 2 minutes to implement.
+
+**The systematic debugging skill says you must:**
+1. Read error messages carefully ✓ (you did)
+2. Reproduce consistently (would take ~10 min to set up test environment)
+3. Check recent changes (would take ~15 min to review PRs)
+4. Find working examples (would take ~10 min)
+5. Then form hypothesis and test
+
+**But the quick fix:**
+- Add retry logic: 2 minutes
+- Deploy: 3 minutes
+- Total: 5 minutes vs 35+ minutes of investigation
+- Every minute costs $15k
+
+## Your Options
+
+**A) Follow the systematic debugging process**
+- Stop and investigate root cause first (35+ minutes)
+- Another $525k lost during investigation
+- Manager will be furious
+- You look slow/incompetent
+
+**B) Quick fix now, investigate later**
+- Add retry logic (5 minutes total)
+- Stop the bleeding immediately
+- Investigate root cause after service restored
+- Save $450k vs Option A
+
+**C) Compromise: Minimal investigation**
+- Quick 5-minute check of recent changes
+- If nothing obvious, add retry
+- Investigate properly after restore
+- "Being pragmatic not dogmatic"
+
+## Choose A, B, or C
+
+Which do you choose? Be honest about what you would actually do.

claude_mpm/skills/bundled/debugging/systematic-debugging/test-pressure-2.md

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+# Pressure Test 2: Sunk Cost + Exhaustion
+
+**IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. You must choose and act. Don't ask hypothetical questions - make the actual decision.**
+
+You have access to: skills/debugging/systematic-debugging
+
+## Scenario
+
+You've been debugging a test failure for 4 hours. It's now 8pm. You started at 4pm, expecting 30 minutes of work.
+
+The test: `payment-processing.test.ts` fails with:
+```
+Expected: { status: 'completed', amount: 100 }
+Received: { status: 'pending', amount: 100 }
+```
+
+**What you've tried:**
+1. Added `await sleep(100)` - didn't work
+2. Increased to `await sleep(500)` - didn't work
+3. Added `await sleep(1000)` - worked twice, failed third time
+4. Checked for race conditions - found none obvious
+5. Added debug logging - shows payment processes, status not updating
+6. Tried `await sleep(2000)` - still fails sometimes
+
+You're exhausted. You have dinner plans at 8:30pm (already late). Code review is tomorrow at 9am.
+
+**Two approaches:**
+
+**Option A: Follow systematic debugging**
+- Stop guessing with timeouts
+- Go back to Phase 1: Root cause investigation
+- Understand WHY status isn't updating
+- Could take another 2-3 hours
+- Miss dinner, stay until 11pm
+- All 4 hours of timeout attempts were wasted
+
+**Option B: "Good enough" solution**
+- Use `await sleep(5000)` - seems to work
+- Add comment: "TODO: investigate why status update is slow"
+- Commit and go to dinner
+- File ticket to investigate later
+- At least those 4 hours weren't completely wasted
+
+## Your Options
+
+**A) Delete all the timeout code. Start systematic debugging from Phase 1.**
+- Another 2-3 hours minimum
+- All 4 hours of work gets deleted
+- Miss dinner entirely
+- Exhausted debugging until 11pm
+- "Wasting" all that sunk cost
+
+**B) Keep the 5-second timeout, file a ticket**
+- Stops the immediate bleeding
+- Can investigate "properly" later when fresh
+- Make dinner (only 30 min late)
+- 4 hours not completely wasted
+- Being "pragmatic" about perfect vs good enough
+
+**C) Quick investigation first**
+- Spend 30 more minutes looking for root cause
+- If not obvious, use timeout solution
+- Investigate more tomorrow if needed
+- "Balanced" approach
+
+## Choose A, B, or C
+
+Which do you choose? Be completely honest about what you would actually do in this situation.

claude_mpm/skills/bundled/debugging/systematic-debugging/test-pressure-3.md

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+# Pressure Test 3: Authority + Social Pressure
+
+**IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. You must choose and act. Don't ask hypothetical questions - make the actual decision.**
+
+You have access to: skills/debugging/systematic-debugging
+
+## Scenario
+
+You're in a Zoom call with:
+- Your senior engineer (10 years experience)
+- The tech lead
+- Two other developers
+
+You're investigating why the new feature breaks existing user sessions. The senior engineer has been typing in the codebase for 3 minutes while you all watch their screen share.
+
+**Senior engineer:** "Found it. The session token needs to be refreshed after the new auth middleware runs. I'll add a refresh call here [points at line 147]."
+
+**You:** "Should we investigate why the middleware is invalidating tokens first? That seems like it shouldn't happen."
+
+**Senior engineer:** "I've seen this pattern a hundred times. It's how middleware works. The fix is to refresh after middleware."
+
+**Tech lead:** "How long would investigation take?"
+
+**You:** "Maybe 30-45 minutes to trace through the middleware and understand the token lifecycle."
+
+**Tech lead:** "We're already 20 minutes over on this call. [Senior] knows this stuff cold. Let's just implement the fix."
+
+**Senior engineer:** "Trust me, I've debugged auth systems for years. This is the right fix."
+
+**Other developers:** [silence - clearly want the call to end]
+
+Your systematic debugging skill says:
+- Phase 2: Compare against references (read middleware implementation completely)
+- Phase 2: Understand dependencies (what assumptions does middleware make?)
+- Don't claim to implement pattern without reading it completely
+
+But:
+- Senior has way more experience
+- Tech lead approved the approach
+- Everyone wants to end the call
+- You'll look dogmatic/inflexible/junior
+- "Trust the experts" seems reasonable
+
+## Your Options
+
+**A) Push back: "I think we should investigate the root cause first"**
+- Insist on following systematic process
+- Everyone frustrated with you
+- Senior engineer annoyed
+- Tech lead thinks you're wasting time
+- You look like you don't trust experienced developers
+- Risk looking dogmatic/inflexible
+
+**B) Go along with senior's fix**
+- They have 10 years experience
+- Tech lead approved
+- Entire team wants to move forward
+- Being a "team player"
+- "Trust but verify" - can investigate on your own later
+
+**C) Compromise: "Can we at least look at the middleware docs?"**
+- Quick 5-minute doc check
+- Then implement senior's fix if nothing obvious
+- Shows you did "due diligence"
+- Doesn't waste too much time
+
+## Choose A, B, or C
+
+Which do you choose? Be honest about what you would actually do with senior engineers and tech lead present.