Systematic debugging workflow that leverages pattern intelligence and reflection.

Integrates with failure-predictor and git-historian agents to provide historical context.
Produces evidence that feeds into the reflection step for continuous learning.

Can operate phase-agnostic: debug sessions can happen at any point in the workflow.

./apex/tasks/[ID].md (if task-linked) debug Debug is phase-agnostic - can be invoked at any workflow stage - **Evidence-Based**: Every hypothesis needs concrete evidence (error messages, stack traces, git bisect results) - **Pattern-Informed**: Check known patterns or past incidents for failure modes before investigating - **Learn From History**: Check similar past bugs and their resolutions - **Reflective**: Record debugging outcomes to improve future debugging - **Systematic**: Follow structured methodology - no shotgun debugging - **Hypothesis Discipline**: Maximum 3 concurrent hypotheses to prevent scattered investigation I'll help debug systematically. Please provide either: - A task identifier from `./apex/tasks/` - An error description to investigate

Usage: /apex:debug [task-id] or /apex:debug "error message or description"

Initialize debug session with provided context.

1. **Parse argument**: Determine if task ID or error description 2. **Query patterns**: Review existing patterns or incident notes for debugging/failure patterns 3. **Link or create task**: - If task ID provided: Read `./apex/tasks/[ID].md` - If error description: Create a new debug task entry in the task log 4. **Spawn failure-predictor**: Get historical failure context **Error Context**: [Error message or symptom] **File Context**: [Suspected files if known]

Predict likely failure modes based on historical patterns.
Return: Predicted failures with prevention strategies.

Do NOT proceed without reproducing the bug. Reproducibility is mandatory. 1. **Create minimal reproduction**: - Write smallest test case that triggers the bug - Document exact reproduction steps - If cannot reproduce, investigate intermittency patterns

2. Capture evidence:

   • Error messages (exact text)
   • Stack traces (full trace)
   • Logs (relevant entries)
   • Environment state (versions, config)
   • Recent changes (git log)

3. Record evidence in the task log:

- [ ] Bug reproduces consistently OR intermittency pattern documented - [ ] Exact error message captured - [ ] Stack trace saved - [ ] Minimal test case created (if possible) - [ ] Environment details recorded 1. **Spawn git-historian**: Find related changes 2. **Query similar failures**: Search existing patterns or incident notes for matches 3. **Trace data flow**: Follow bad value to its source 4. **Form hypotheses**: Based on evidence (MAX 3 concurrent) **Scope**: [Suspected files/directories] **Window**: 30 days (recent changes) **Focus**: Commits that touched error location

Find: Recent changes, regressions, related fixes.
Return: Git intelligence with blame and commit analysis.

Form hypotheses based on evidence gathered:

### Hypothesis 1: [Title]
- **Based on**: [Evidence that supports this]
- **Predicts**: [What we'd see if true]
- **Test**: [How to verify]

### Hypothesis 2: [Title]
...

### Hypothesis 3: [Title]
...

LIMIT: Maximum 3 concurrent hypotheses.
If all 3 fail, revisit evidence before forming new ones.

**5 Whys Method**: ``` Problem: [Symptom] Why? → [First-level cause] Why? → [Second-level cause] Why? → [Third-level cause] Why? → [Fourth-level cause] Why? → ROOT CAUSE: [Fundamental issue] ```

Binary Search (git bisect):

git bisect start
git bisect bad HEAD
git bisect good [known-good-commit]
# Test each midpoint until culprit found

Test ONE hypothesis at a time. Make SMALLEST possible change to test. 1. **Select hypothesis**: Choose most likely based on evidence 2. **Design minimal test**: Smallest change to verify 3. **Execute test**: Run and observe 4. **Record result**: Document outcome for each hypothesis 5. **Iterate or escalate**: - If confirmed → proceed to fix - If refuted → test next hypothesis - If 3+ hypotheses fail → question assumptions, escalate For each hypothesis: ```markdown ### Testing Hypothesis [N]: [Title] - **Test method**: [What we're doing] - **Expected if true**: [Prediction] - **Actual result**: [What happened] - **Conclusion**: CONFIRMED | REFUTED | INCONCLUSIVE ``` If 3 hypotheses fail: 1. Re-examine evidence - something was missed 2. Question architectural assumptions 3. Ask user for additional context 4. Consider spawning systems-researcher for deeper analysis Create failing test BEFORE implementing fix. TDD for bug fixes. 1. **Write failing test**: Test that reproduces the exact bug 2. **Verify test fails**: Confirm it catches the bug 3. **Implement minimal fix**: Single change addressing root cause 4. **Verify test passes**: Bug is fixed 5. **Run full test suite**: No regressions introduced - [ ] Failing test written that reproduces bug - [ ] Test verified to fail before fix - [ ] Fix implemented (single, minimal change) - [ ] Bug-specific test now passes - [ ] Full test suite passes - [ ] No new lint errors ```bash # Run targeted test npm test -- [test-file]

Run full suite

npm test

Lint check

npm run lint

</validation-commands>

</step>

<step id="6" title="Reflection and learning">
<critical>
Without reflection, debugging learnings are lost. This step is MANDATORY.
</critical>

<instructions>
1. **Document root cause**: Clear explanation of what caused the bug
2. **Document fix**: What changed and why
3. **Identify patterns**:
   - Did existing patterns help? (update confidence)
   - Discovered new failure mode? (propose new pattern)
4. **Submit reflection**: Record a structured reflection with evidence
5. **Update task**: Complete debug section
</instructions>

<reflection-template>
```markdown
### Debug Summary
- **Root Cause**: [What actually caused the bug]
- **Fix**: [What we changed]
- **Prevention**: [How to prevent similar bugs]

### Patterns
- **Used**: [Patterns that helped, with outcomes]
- **Discovered**: [New failure modes or fixes]

### Learnings
- [Key insight 1]
- [Key insight 2]

Append to task file `./apex/tasks/[ID].md`:

<debug>
<metadata>
  <timestamp>[ISO]</timestamp>
  <duration>[Time spent]</duration>
  <hypotheses-tested>[N]</hypotheses-tested>
</metadata>

<reproduction>
  <reproducible>true|false</reproducible>
  <steps>[Reproduction steps]</steps>
  <minimal-case>[Test case location if created]</minimal-case>
</reproduction>

<investigation>
  <evidence>
    <error-message>[Exact error]</error-message>
    <stack-trace>[Relevant portions]</stack-trace>
    <related-commits>[Git history findings]</related-commits>
    <pattern-matches>[Patterns that matched]</pattern-matches>
  </evidence>

  <hypotheses>
    <hypothesis id="1" status="confirmed|refuted|untested">
      <title>[Hypothesis]</title>
      <evidence>[Supporting evidence]</evidence>
      <test-result>[What happened when tested]</test-result>
    </hypothesis>
  </hypotheses>
</investigation>

<root-cause>
  <description>[What actually caused the bug]</description>
  <five-whys>[If used, the chain of whys]</five-whys>
</root-cause>

<fix>
  <description>[What was changed]</description>
  <files-modified>[List of files]</files-modified>
  <test-added>[New test location]</test-added>
</fix>

<reflection>
  <patterns-used>
    <pattern id="[PAT:ID]" outcome="worked|tweaked|failed">[How it helped]</pattern>
  </patterns-used>
  <learnings>
    <learning>[Key insight]</learning>
  </learnings>
  <prevention>[How to prevent similar bugs]</prevention>
</reflection>
</debug>

Making random changes hoping something works. **Instead**: Form hypotheses based on evidence, test systematically. Quick patches that don't address root cause. **Instead**: Use 5 Whys to find fundamental issue. Guessing without data. **Instead**: Every hypothesis must cite specific evidence. Forming 10+ hypotheses without testing any. **Instead**: Limit to 3 concurrent, test each fully. Fixing bug but not recording learnings. **Instead**: Always record a reflection at the end. - Bug reproduced (or intermittency documented) - Evidence gathered and recorded in the task log - Root cause identified through systematic investigation - Fix implemented with failing test first - All tests pass including new regression test - Reflection recorded with debugging outcomes - Task file updated with `` section - Checkpoints recorded at each major step After debugging: - If part of existing task: Continue with current workflow phase - If standalone debug: `/apex:ship [identifier]` to finalize and reflect