parallel-debugging
The parallel-debugging skill implements the Analysis of Competing Hypotheses methodology to systematically investigate complex bugs by generating multiple root cause hypotheses across six failure categories (logic errors, data issues, state problems, integration failures, resource issues, and environment factors), then collecting and evaluating evidence to arbitrate between competing explanations. Use this skill when a bug has multiple plausible causes, initial debugging attempts have stalled, the issue spans multiple components, or you need to avoid confirmation bias in root cause analysis.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/wshobson/agents /tmp/parallel-debugging && cp -r /tmp/parallel-debugging/plugins/agent-teams/skills/parallel-debugging ~/.claude/skills/parallel-debuggingSKILL.md
# 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 State Problem - Race condition between concurrent operations - Stale cache returning outdated data - Incorrect initialization or default values - Unintended mutation of shared state - State machine transition error ### 4.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: 1. Confidence level 2. Number of supporting evidence pieces 3. Strength of causal chain 4. 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
Test web applications with screen readers including VoiceOver, NVDA, and JAWS. Use when validating screen reader compatibility, debugging accessibility issues, or ensuring assistive technology support.
Conduct WCAG 2.2 accessibility audits with automated testing, manual verification, and remediation guidance. Use when auditing websites for accessibility, fixing WCAG violations, or implementing accessible design patterns.
Coordinate parallel code reviews across multiple quality dimensions with finding deduplication, severity calibration, and consolidated reporting. Use this skill when organizing multi-reviewer code reviews, calibrating finding severity, or consolidating review results.
Coordinate parallel feature development with file ownership strategies, conflict avoidance rules, and integration patterns for multi-agent implementation. Use this skill when decomposing a large feature into independent work streams, when two or more agents need to implement different layers of the same system simultaneously, when establishing file ownership to prevent merge conflicts in a shared codebase, when designing interface contracts so parallel implementers can build against each other's APIs before they are ready, or when deciding whether to use vertical slices versus horizontal layers for a full-stack feature.
Decompose complex tasks, design dependency graphs, and coordinate multi-agent work with proper task descriptions and workload balancing. Use this skill when breaking down work for agent teams, managing task dependencies, or monitoring team progress.
Structured messaging protocols for agent team communication including message type selection, plan approval, shutdown procedures, and anti-patterns to avoid. Use this skill when establishing communication norms for a newly spawned team, when deciding whether to send a direct message or a broadcast, when a team-lead needs to review and approve an implementer's plan before work begins, when orchestrating a graceful team shutdown after all tasks are complete, or when debugging why teammates are not coordinating correctly at integration points.
Design optimal agent team compositions with sizing heuristics, preset configurations, and agent type selection. Use this skill when deciding how many agents to spawn for a task, when choosing between a review team versus a feature team versus a debug team, when selecting the correct subagent_type for each role to ensure agents have the tools they need, when configuring display modes (tmux, iTerm2, in-process) for a CI or local environment, or when building a custom team composition for a non-standard workflow such as a migration or security audit.
Create production-ready FastAPI projects with async patterns, dependency injection, and comprehensive error handling. Use when building new FastAPI applications or setting up backend API projects.