仓库原始内容
按源仓库内容呈现，保留标题、案例、代码、表格、链接以及原文引用的演示图片。
Parallel Debugging
Framework for debugging complex issues using the Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) methodology with parallel agent investigation.
When to Use This Skill
- Bug has multiple plausible root causes
- Initial debugging attempts haven't identified the issue
- Issue spans multiple modules or components
- Need systematic root cause analysis with evidence
- Want to avoid confirmation bias in debugging
Hypothesis Generation Framework
Generate hypotheses across 6 failure mode categories:
1. Logic Error
- Incorrect conditional logic (wrong operator, missing case)
- Off-by-one errors in loops or array access
- Missing edge case handling
- Incorrect algorithm implementation
2. Data Issue
- Invalid or unexpected input data
- Type mismatch or coercion error
- Null/undefined/None where value expected
- Encoding or serialization problem
- Data truncation or overflow
3. State Problem
- Race condition between concurrent operations
- Stale cache returning outdated data
- Incorrect initialization or default values
- Unintended mutation of shared state
- State machine transition error
4. Integration Failure
- API contract violation (request/response mismatch)
- Version incompatibility between components
- Configuration mismatch between environments
- Missing or incorrect environment variables
- Network timeout or connection failure
5. Resource Issue
- Memory leak causing gradual degradation
- Connection pool exhaustion
- File descriptor or handle leak
- Disk space or quota exceeded
- CPU saturation from inefficient processing
6. Environment
- Missing runtime dependency
- Wrong library or framework version
- Platform-specific behavior difference
- Permission or access control issue
- Timezone or locale-related behavior
Evidence Collection Standards
What Constitutes Evidence
| Evidence Type | Strength | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Direct | Strong | Code at file.ts:42 shows if (x > 0) should be if (x >= 0) |
| Correlational | Medium | Error rate increased after commit abc123 |
| Testimonial | Weak | "It works on my machine" |
| Absence | Variable | No null check found in the code path |
Citation Format
Always cite evidence with file:line references:
**Evidence**: The validation function at `src/validators/user.ts:87`
does not check for empty strings, only null/undefined. This allows
empty email addresses to pass validation.Confidence Levels
| Level | Criteria |
|---|---|
| High (>80%) | Multiple direct evidence pieces, clear causal chain, no contradicting evidence |
| Medium (50-80%) | Some direct evidence, plausible causal chain, minor ambiguities |
| Low (<50%) | Mostly correlational evidence, incomplete causal chain, some contradicting evidence |
Result Arbitration Protocol
After all investigators report:
Step 1: Categorize Results
- Confirmed: High confidence, strong evidence, clear causal chain
- Plausible: Medium confidence, some evidence, reasonable causal chain
- Falsified: Evidence contradicts the hypothesis
- Inconclusive: Insufficient evidence to confirm or falsify
Step 2: Compare Confirmed Hypotheses
If multiple hypotheses are confirmed, rank by:
- Confidence level
- Number of supporting evidence pieces
- Strength of causal chain
- Absence of contradicting evidence
Step 3: Determine Root Cause
- If one hypothesis clearly dominates: declare as root cause
- If multiple hypotheses are equally likely: may be compound issue (multiple contributing causes)
- If no hypotheses confirmed: generate new hypotheses based on evidence gathered
Step 4: Validate Fix
Before declaring the bug fixed:
- [ ] Fix addresses the identified root cause
- [ ] Fix doesn't introduce new issues
- [ ] Original reproduction case no longer fails
- [ ] Related edge cases are covered
- [ ] Relevant tests are added or updated
