SuperAPI AI Directory
Partner with us中文AI newsFavorites
Skillsbug-hunting

bug-hunting

Coding & development

View repository

Updated 10-16 07:59

About this skill

Bug Hunting

Overview

Bugs have root causes. Symptoms have patches. Patches create future bugs.

Core principle: A claim is not evidence. Evidence is not root cause. Root cause is not a fix.

Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of bug hunting.

Two Modes

Mode Trigger First Question
Reactive "Fix this bug", "test failing", "production error" What is the confirmed root cause?
Proactive "Review this code", "find bugs in...", "audit this" What could go wrong? Where are the weakest points?

Both modes follow the same 5 phases. Entry point differs; discipline does not.

Pocket Education guard (reactive mode). If the memory file in your context (CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md) has no ## Pocket Education heading, ignore this paragraph. If it has one, confirm with npx -y pocketto-pi edu --json --contract 3; when data.education is true (or the command errors), ask before Phase 0: "Pocket Education is on here. Do you want to hunt this bug yourself with guidance (→ pocket-education), or should I fix it?" Make no fix until the user explicitly chooses. An explicit handover already given in pocket-education for this task counts as the answer. Proactive audits that change no code are unaffected.

The Three Iron Laws

LAW 1: NO FIX WITHOUT CONFIRMED ROOT CAUSE
LAW 2: NO CLAIM WITHOUT EVIDENCE
LAW 3: FIX THE SOURCE, NOT THE SYMPTOM

The Laws are non-negotiable. All three must hold for every bug.

If you haven't confirmed root cause → you cannot propose a fix. If you have evidence → state it explicitly. Never say "probably" or "almost certainly." If the fix is at the crash site → trace back further. The source is upstream.

The Five Phases

Complete each phase before proceeding. No skipping.

Phase 0: Reconnaissance

BEFORE touching any code or error message:

  1. What is the expected behavior? (What should it do, not what it does?)
  2. What type of bug is this?
    • Logic error, race condition, data corruption, integration failure, performance, security
  3. What components are involved?
  4. What are common bugs in this domain/language/framework?

→ If expected behavior is unclear: stop and clarify before proceeding.

This phase prevents "fixing" intentional behavior and grounds your investigation.

Phase 1: Evidence Hunt

Collect evidence. Do not interpret yet.

  1. Read ALL error messages and stack traces — every line, every file path

  2. Reproduce consistently — if you cannot reproduce it, you cannot fix it

  3. Check recent changes — git diff, recent commits, new dependencies

  4. Add diagnostic instrumentation at component boundaries

    → Read references/evidence-collection.md for multi-component instrumentation patterns

Classify every piece of evidence:

  • ✅ CONFIRMED — reproducible, directly observed
  • 🔍 SUSPECTED — correlates but not proven
  • 💭 THEORETICAL — logical inference, not yet observed

No fix attempts in this phase. Evidence collection only.

Phase 2: Blast Radius Mapping

Before tracing the root cause, map the full surface.

→ Read references/blast-radius.md before this phase

  1. Document the primary bug with its evidence classification
  2. Identify minimum 2 additional suspects in the same area:
    • Other functions with the same pattern
    • Related code paths that could fail the same way
    • Adjacent components that share the broken assumption
  3. Classify each suspect by severity:
    • 🔴 Critical — data loss, security breach, crash in production
    • 🟠 High — wrong output, significant user impact
    • 🟡 Medium — intermittent, workaround exists
    • 🟢 Low — cosmetic, rare edge case

Fixing one bug while missing three siblings is not a fix — it's a delay.

Phase 3: Root Cause Trace

Trace backward to the origin. Not where it crashes — where it starts.

→ Read references/root-cause-tracing.md for complete backward tracing technique

For each bug in Phase 2:

  1. Where does the bad value originate?
  2. What called this code with the bad value?
  3. Keep tracing up until you find the source — not the crash site
  4. Form one hypothesis: "Root cause is X because [confirmed evidence Y]"
  5. Test minimally — one change, one variable

Gates:

  • Hypothesis not confirmed? → Form new hypothesis. Return to Phase 1.
  • 3+ hypotheses failed? → Architectural problem. Stop and discuss before fix #4.

Phase 4: Resolution

Fix confirmed root causes. Make bugs structurally impossible.

→ Read references/defense-in-depth.md for layered validation patterns

  1. Create failing test first — before writing the fix (write a minimal failing test that reproduces the bug; use TDD: test must fail for the right reason before any code is written)
  2. Fix one bug at a time — address the root cause, not the crash site
  3. Apply defense-in-depth — validate at multiple layers so the bug cannot recur
  4. Verify — test passes, no regressions, issue resolved

Priority order: 🔴 Critical → 🟠 High → 🟡 Medium → 🟢 Low

Evidence Language Rules

Forbidden phrase Why Required replacement
"almost certainly" Claim disguised as evidence State the actual evidence or say "SUSPECTED"
"probably X" Guess dressed as diagnosis Reproduce it or mark as 💭 THEORETICAL
"appears to be" Hedged assumption Run the trace. Confirm or mark SUSPECTED.
"root cause is X" May be proximate, not source Complete Phase 3 trace first
"fix is safe regardless of cause" Skips Law 1 entirely No. Root cause first. Always.
"investigate later/next sprint" Deferred symptom patch Do not ship a fix without its root cause confirmed

Red Flags — STOP and Return to Phase 0

  • "Quick fix for now, investigate later"
  • "The correlation is too strong to be coincidence" → correlation ≠ causation
  • "The fix is minimal/one-line, it can't hurt anything"
  • "Expert/senior/manager already confirmed the root cause" → verify it yourself
  • "I don't fully understand but this should work"
  • Each fix reveals a new problem in a different place → architectural problem

Quick Reference

Phase Purpose Gate to proceed
0. Reconnaissance What should it do? What type of bug? Expected behavior is clear
1. Evidence Hunt Collect, classify, reproduce Can reproduce consistently
2. Blast Radius Primary + 2 suspects + severity All suspects mapped
3. Root Cause Trace Trace backward to origin Root cause CONFIRMED, not "probably"
4. Resolution Test, fix source, add layers All 🔴 Critical resolved, tests pass

Supporting Techniques

  • references/evidence-collection.md — Multi-component diagnostic instrumentation
  • references/blast-radius.md — Surface mapping: finding adjacent bugs before fixing one
  • references/root-cause-tracing.md — Backward tracing through call chains
  • references/defense-in-depth.md — Layered validation to make bugs structurally impossible

Related skills:

  • TDD skill (any environment) — For failing test creation (Phase 4, Step 1)
  • Verification — Verify fix before claiming success: re-run full test suite, confirm issue resolved, no regressions