[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M6DW0FPD22RCV9FFFFR9J8SS":3,"skill-same:01M6DW0FPD22RCV9FFFFR9J8SS":98},{"skillNo":4,"name":5,"nameZh":6,"description":7,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":16,"categories":17,"keywords":26,"publishedAt":47,"linkOnly":48,"markdownContent":49,"markdownBody":50,"frontMatter":51,"refName":52,"commitSha":53,"skillDirectory":54,"forksCount":55,"repositoryHtmlUrl":56,"repositoryHomepageUrl":6,"ownerHtmlUrl":57,"ownerBlogUrl":58,"ownerDescription":6,"updatedAt":59,"install":60,"resources":73},"01M6DW0FPD22RCV9FFFFR9J8SS","systematic-debugging",null,"Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes. Covers: root-cause investigation, reproduction, recent-changes review, evidence gathering across component boundaries, hypothesis-driven fixing. DO NOT use for: purely visual\u002Flayout bugs inspectable in devtools (see frontend:frontend-best-practices).","FabienSalles\u002Fclaude-marketplace","FabienSalles","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F937901?v=4","01M6DVJBD31CJKRB382FQFZ5FH","Fabien Salles","01M6DVJBQNY8Q18KJD1ESAD6TX",9,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FFabienSalles\u002Fclaude-marketplace\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fplugins\u002Fsuperpowers\u002Fskills\u002Fsystematic-debugging\u002FSKILL.md",[18,23],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000008","测试与质量","SCENARIO","使用场景",{"categoryNo":24,"categoryName":25,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000009","前端开发",[27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46],"systematic","systematic debugging","debugging","use","layout","across","visual","do","root-cause","best-practices","bug","evidence","frontend","behavior","investigation","hypothesis","devtools","component","test","review","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: systematic-debugging\ndescription: \"Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes. Covers: root-cause investigation, reproduction, recent-changes review, evidence gathering across component boundaries, hypothesis-driven fixing. DO NOT use for: purely visual\u002Flayout bugs inspectable in devtools (see frontend:frontend-best-practices).\"\n---\n\n# Systematic Debugging\n\n## Overview\n\nRandom fixes waste time and create new bugs. Quick patches mask underlying issues.\n\n**Core principle:** ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes. Symptom fixes are failure.\n\n**Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of debugging.**\n\n## The Iron Law\n\n```\nNO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST\n```\n\nIf you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.\n\n## When to Use\n\nUse for ANY technical issue:\n- Test failures\n- Bugs in production\n- Unexpected behavior\n- Performance problems\n- Build failures\n- Integration issues\n\n**Use this ESPECIALLY when:**\n- Under time pressure (emergencies make guessing tempting)\n- \"Just one quick fix\" seems obvious\n- You've already tried multiple fixes\n- Previous fix didn't work\n- You don't fully understand the issue\n\n**Don't skip when:**\n- Issue seems simple (simple bugs have root causes too)\n- You're in a hurry (rushing guarantees rework)\n- Manager wants it fixed NOW (systematic is faster than thrashing)\n\n## The Four Phases\n\nYou MUST complete each phase before proceeding to the next.\n\n### Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation\n\n**BEFORE attempting ANY fix:**\n\n1. **Read Error Messages Carefully**\n   - Don't skip past errors or warnings\n   - They often contain the exact solution\n   - Read stack traces completely\n   - Note line numbers, file paths, error codes\n\n2. **Reproduce Consistently**\n   - Can you trigger it reliably?\n   - What are the exact steps?\n   - Does it happen every time?\n   - If not reproducible → gather more data, don't guess\n\n3. **Check Recent Changes**\n   - What changed that could cause this?\n   - Git diff, recent commits\n   - New dependencies, config changes\n   - Environmental differences\n\n4. **Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems**\n\n   **WHEN system has multiple components (CI → build → signing, API → service → database):**\n\n   **BEFORE proposing fixes, add diagnostic instrumentation:**\n   ```\n   For EACH component boundary:\n     - Log what data enters component\n     - Log what data exits component\n     - Verify environment\u002Fconfig propagation\n     - Check state at each layer\n\n   Run once to gather evidence showing WHERE it breaks\n   THEN analyze evidence to identify failing component\n   THEN investigate that specific component\n   ```\n\n   **Example (multi-layer system):**\n   ```bash\n   # Layer 1: Workflow\n   echo \"=== Secrets available in workflow: ===\"\n   echo \"IDENTITY: ${IDENTITY:+SET}${IDENTITY:-UNSET}\"\n\n   # Layer 2: Build script\n   echo \"=== Env vars in build script: ===\"\n   env | grep IDENTITY || echo \"IDENTITY not in environment\"\n\n   # Layer 3: Signing script\n   echo \"=== Keychain state: ===\"\n   security list-keychains\n   security find-identity -v\n\n   # Layer 4: Actual signing\n   codesign --sign \"$IDENTITY\" --verbose=4 \"$APP\"\n   ```\n\n   **This reveals:** Which layer fails (secrets → workflow ✓, workflow → build ✗)\n\n5. **Trace Data Flow**\n\n   **WHEN error is deep in call stack:**\n\n   See `root-cause-tracing.md` in this directory for the complete backward tracing technique.\n\n   **Quick version:**\n   - Where does bad value originate?\n   - What called this with bad value?\n   - Keep tracing up until you find the source\n   - Fix at source, not at symptom\n\n### Phase 2: Pattern Analysis\n\n**Find the pattern before fixing:**\n\n1. **Find Working Examples**\n   - Locate similar working code in same codebase\n   - What works that's similar to what's broken?\n\n2. **Compare Against References**\n   - If implementing pattern, read reference implementation COMPLETELY\n   - Don't skim - read every line\n   - Understand the pattern fully before applying\n\n3. **Identify Differences**\n   - What's different between working and broken?\n   - List every difference, however small\n   - Don't assume \"that can't matter\"\n\n4. **Understand Dependencies**\n   - What other components does this need?\n   - What settings, config, environment?\n   - What assumptions does it make?\n\n### Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing\n\n**Scientific method:**\n\n1. **Form Single Hypothesis**\n   - State clearly: \"I think X is the root cause because Y\"\n   - Write it down\n   - Be specific, not vague\n\n2. **Test Minimally**\n   - Make the SMALLEST possible change to test hypothesis\n   - One variable at a time\n   - Don't fix multiple things at once\n\n3. **Verify Before Continuing**\n   - Did it work? Yes → Phase 4\n   - Didn't work? Form NEW hypothesis\n   - DON'T add more fixes on top\n\n4. **When You Don't Know**\n   - Say \"I don't understand X\"\n   - Don't pretend to know\n   - Ask for help\n   - Research more\n\n### Phase 4: Implementation\n\n**Fix the root cause, not the symptom:**\n\n1. **Create Failing Test Case**\n   - Simplest possible reproduction\n   - Automated test if possible\n   - One-off test script if no framework\n   - MUST have before fixing\n   - Use the `craft:tdd-workflow-principles` skill for writing proper failing tests\n\n2. **Implement Single Fix**\n   - Address the root cause identified\n   - ONE change at a time\n   - No \"while I'm here\" improvements\n   - No bundled refactoring\n\n3. **Verify Fix**\n   - Test passes now?\n   - No other tests broken?\n   - Issue actually resolved?\n\n4. **If Fix Doesn't Work**\n   - STOP\n   - Count: How many fixes have you tried?\n   - If \u003C 3: Return to Phase 1, re-analyze with new information\n   - **If ≥ 3: STOP and question the architecture (step 5 below)**\n   - DON'T attempt Fix #4 without architectural discussion\n\n5. **If 3+ Fixes Failed: Question Architecture**\n\n   **Pattern indicating architectural problem:**\n   - Each fix reveals new shared state\u002Fcoupling\u002Fproblem in different place\n   - Fixes require \"massive refactoring\" to implement\n   - Each fix creates new symptoms elsewhere\n\n   **STOP and question fundamentals:**\n   - Is this pattern fundamentally sound?\n   - Are we \"sticking with it through sheer inertia\"?\n   - Should we refactor architecture vs. continue fixing symptoms?\n\n   **Discuss with your human partner before attempting more fixes**\n\n   This is NOT a failed hypothesis - this is a wrong architecture.\n\n## Red Flags - STOP and Follow Process\n\nIf you catch yourself thinking:\n- \"Quick fix for now, investigate later\"\n- \"Just try changing X and see if it works\"\n- \"Add multiple changes, run tests\"\n- \"Skip the test, I'll manually verify\"\n- \"It's probably X, let me fix that\"\n- \"I don't fully understand but this might work\"\n- \"Pattern says X but I'll adapt it differently\"\n- \"Here are the main problems: [lists fixes without investigation]\"\n- Proposing solutions before tracing data flow\n- **\"One more fix attempt\" (when already tried 2+)**\n- **Each fix reveals new problem in different place**\n\n**ALL of these mean: STOP. Return to Phase 1.**\n\n**If 3+ fixes failed:** Question the architecture (see Phase 4.5)\n\n## your human partner's Signals You're Doing It Wrong\n\n**Watch for these redirections:**\n- \"Is that not happening?\" - You assumed without verifying\n- \"Will it show us...?\" - You should have added evidence gathering\n- \"Stop guessing\" - You're proposing fixes without understanding\n- \"Ultrathink this\" - Question fundamentals, not just symptoms\n- \"We're stuck?\" (frustrated) - Your approach isn't working\n\n**When you see these:** STOP. Return to Phase 1.\n\n## Common Rationalizations\n\n| Excuse | Reality |\n|--------|---------|\n| \"Issue is simple, don't need process\" | Simple issues have root causes too. Process is fast for simple bugs. |\n| \"Emergency, no time for process\" | Systematic debugging is FASTER than guess-and-check thrashing. |\n| \"Just try this first, then investigate\" | First fix sets the pattern. Do it right from the start. |\n| \"I'll write test after confirming fix works\" | Untested fixes don't stick. Test first proves it. |\n| \"Multiple fixes at once saves time\" | Can't isolate what worked. Causes new bugs. |\n| \"Reference too long, I'll adapt the pattern\" | Partial understanding guarantees bugs. Read it completely. |\n| \"I see the problem, let me fix it\" | Seeing symptoms ≠ understanding root cause. |\n| \"One more fix attempt\" (after 2+ failures) | 3+ failures = architectural problem. Question pattern, don't fix again. |\n\n## Quick Reference\n\n| Phase | Key Activities | Success Criteria |\n|-------|---------------|------------------|\n| **1. Root Cause** | Read errors, reproduce, check changes, gather evidence | Understand WHAT and WHY |\n| **2. Pattern** | Find working examples, compare | Identify differences |\n| **3. Hypothesis** | Form theory, test minimally | Confirmed or new hypothesis |\n| **4. Implementation** | Create test, fix, verify | Bug resolved, tests pass |\n\n## When Process Reveals \"No Root Cause\"\n\nIf systematic investigation reveals issue is truly environmental, timing-dependent, or external:\n\n1. You've completed the process\n2. Document what you investigated\n3. Implement appropriate handling (retry, timeout, error message)\n4. Add monitoring\u002Flogging for future investigation\n\n**But:** 95% of \"no root cause\" cases are incomplete investigation.\n\n## Supporting Techniques\n\nThese techniques are part of systematic debugging and available in this directory:\n\n- **`root-cause-tracing.md`** - Trace bugs backward through call stack to find original trigger\n- **`defense-in-depth.md`** - Add validation at multiple layers after finding root cause\n- **`condition-based-waiting.md`** - Replace arbitrary timeouts with condition polling\n\n**Related skills:**\n- **craft:tdd-workflow-principles** - For creating failing test case (Phase 4, Step 1)\n- **superpowers:verification-before-completion** - Verify fix worked before claiming success\n\n## Real-World Impact\n\nFrom debugging sessions:\n- Systematic approach: 15-30 minutes to fix\n- Random fixes approach: 2-3 hours of thrashing\n- First-time fix rate: 95% vs 40%\n- New bugs introduced: Near zero vs common\n","# Systematic Debugging\n\n## Overview\n\nRandom fixes waste time and create new bugs. Quick patches mask underlying issues.\n\n**Core principle:** ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes. Symptom fixes are failure.\n\n**Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of debugging.**\n\n## The Iron Law\n\n```\nNO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST\n```\n\nIf you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.\n\n## When to Use\n\nUse for ANY technical issue:\n- Test failures\n- Bugs in production\n- Unexpected behavior\n- Performance problems\n- Build failures\n- Integration issues\n\n**Use this ESPECIALLY when:**\n- Under time pressure (emergencies make guessing tempting)\n- \"Just one quick fix\" seems obvious\n- You've already tried multiple fixes\n- Previous fix didn't work\n- You don't fully understand the issue\n\n**Don't skip when:**\n- Issue seems simple (simple bugs have root causes too)\n- You're in a hurry (rushing guarantees rework)\n- Manager wants it fixed NOW (systematic is faster than thrashing)\n\n## The Four Phases\n\nYou MUST complete each phase before proceeding to the next.\n\n### Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation\n\n**BEFORE attempting ANY fix:**\n\n1. **Read Error Messages Carefully**\n   - Don't skip past errors or warnings\n   - They often contain the exact solution\n   - Read stack traces completely\n   - Note line numbers, file paths, error codes\n\n2. **Reproduce Consistently**\n   - Can you trigger it reliably?\n   - What are the exact steps?\n   - Does it happen every time?\n   - If not reproducible → gather more data, don't guess\n\n3. **Check Recent Changes**\n   - What changed that could cause this?\n   - Git diff, recent commits\n   - New dependencies, config changes\n   - Environmental differences\n\n4. **Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems**\n\n   **WHEN system has multiple components (CI → build → signing, API → service → database):**\n\n   **BEFORE proposing fixes, add diagnostic instrumentation:**\n   ```\n   For EACH component boundary:\n     - Log what data enters component\n     - Log what data exits component\n     - Verify environment\u002Fconfig propagation\n     - Check state at each layer\n\n   Run once to gather evidence showing WHERE it breaks\n   THEN analyze evidence to identify failing component\n   THEN investigate that specific component\n   ```\n\n   **Example (multi-layer system):**\n   ```bash\n   # Layer 1: Workflow\n   echo \"=== Secrets available in workflow: ===\"\n   echo \"IDENTITY: ${IDENTITY:+SET}${IDENTITY:-UNSET}\"\n\n   # Layer 2: Build script\n   echo \"=== Env vars in build script: ===\"\n   env | grep IDENTITY || echo \"IDENTITY not in environment\"\n\n   # Layer 3: Signing script\n   echo \"=== Keychain state: ===\"\n   security list-keychains\n   security find-identity -v\n\n   # Layer 4: Actual signing\n   codesign --sign \"$IDENTITY\" --verbose=4 \"$APP\"\n   ```\n\n   **This reveals:** Which layer fails (secrets → workflow ✓, workflow → build ✗)\n\n5. **Trace Data Flow**\n\n   **WHEN error is deep in call stack:**\n\n   See `root-cause-tracing.md` in this directory for the complete backward tracing technique.\n\n   **Quick version:**\n   - Where does bad value originate?\n   - What called this with bad value?\n   - Keep tracing up until you find the source\n   - Fix at source, not at symptom\n\n### Phase 2: Pattern Analysis\n\n**Find the pattern before fixing:**\n\n1. **Find Working Examples**\n   - Locate similar working code in same codebase\n   - What works that's similar to what's broken?\n\n2. **Compare Against References**\n   - If implementing pattern, read reference implementation COMPLETELY\n   - Don't skim - read every line\n   - Understand the pattern fully before applying\n\n3. **Identify Differences**\n   - What's different between working and broken?\n   - List every difference, however small\n   - Don't assume \"that can't matter\"\n\n4. **Understand Dependencies**\n   - What other components does this need?\n   - What settings, config, environment?\n   - What assumptions does it make?\n\n### Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing\n\n**Scientific method:**\n\n1. **Form Single Hypothesis**\n   - State clearly: \"I think X is the root cause because Y\"\n   - Write it down\n   - Be specific, not vague\n\n2. **Test Minimally**\n   - Make the SMALLEST possible change to test hypothesis\n   - One variable at a time\n   - Don't fix multiple things at once\n\n3. **Verify Before Continuing**\n   - Did it work? Yes → Phase 4\n   - Didn't work? Form NEW hypothesis\n   - DON'T add more fixes on top\n\n4. **When You Don't Know**\n   - Say \"I don't understand X\"\n   - Don't pretend to know\n   - Ask for help\n   - Research more\n\n### Phase 4: Implementation\n\n**Fix the root cause, not the symptom:**\n\n1. **Create Failing Test Case**\n   - Simplest possible reproduction\n   - Automated test if possible\n   - One-off test script if no framework\n   - MUST have before fixing\n   - Use the `craft:tdd-workflow-principles` skill for writing proper failing tests\n\n2. **Implement Single Fix**\n   - Address the root cause identified\n   - ONE change at a time\n   - No \"while I'm here\" improvements\n   - No bundled refactoring\n\n3. **Verify Fix**\n   - Test passes now?\n   - No other tests broken?\n   - Issue actually resolved?\n\n4. **If Fix Doesn't Work**\n   - STOP\n   - Count: How many fixes have you tried?\n   - If \u003C 3: Return to Phase 1, re-analyze with new information\n   - **If ≥ 3: STOP and question the architecture (step 5 below)**\n   - DON'T attempt Fix #4 without architectural discussion\n\n5. **If 3+ Fixes Failed: Question Architecture**\n\n   **Pattern indicating architectural problem:**\n   - Each fix reveals new shared state\u002Fcoupling\u002Fproblem in different place\n   - Fixes require \"massive refactoring\" to implement\n   - Each fix creates new symptoms elsewhere\n\n   **STOP and question fundamentals:**\n   - Is this pattern fundamentally sound?\n   - Are we \"sticking with it through sheer inertia\"?\n   - Should we refactor architecture vs. continue fixing symptoms?\n\n   **Discuss with your human partner before attempting more fixes**\n\n   This is NOT a failed hypothesis - this is a wrong architecture.\n\n## Red Flags - STOP and Follow Process\n\nIf you catch yourself thinking:\n- \"Quick fix for now, investigate later\"\n- \"Just try changing X and see if it works\"\n- \"Add multiple changes, run tests\"\n- \"Skip the test, I'll manually verify\"\n- \"It's probably X, let me fix that\"\n- \"I don't fully understand but this might work\"\n- \"Pattern says X but I'll adapt it differently\"\n- \"Here are the main problems: [lists fixes without investigation]\"\n- Proposing solutions before tracing data flow\n- **\"One more fix attempt\" (when already tried 2+)**\n- **Each fix reveals new problem in different place**\n\n**ALL of these mean: STOP. Return to Phase 1.**\n\n**If 3+ fixes failed:** Question the architecture (see Phase 4.5)\n\n## your human partner's Signals You're Doing It Wrong\n\n**Watch for these redirections:**\n- \"Is that not happening?\" - You assumed without verifying\n- \"Will it show us...?\" - You should have added evidence gathering\n- \"Stop guessing\" - You're proposing fixes without understanding\n- \"Ultrathink this\" - Question fundamentals, not just symptoms\n- \"We're stuck?\" (frustrated) - Your approach isn't working\n\n**When you see these:** STOP. Return to Phase 1.\n\n## Common Rationalizations\n\n| Excuse | Reality |\n|--------|---------|\n| \"Issue is simple, don't need process\" | Simple issues have root causes too. Process is fast for simple bugs. |\n| \"Emergency, no time for process\" | Systematic debugging is FASTER than guess-and-check thrashing. |\n| \"Just try this first, then investigate\" | First fix sets the pattern. Do it right from the start. |\n| \"I'll write test after confirming fix works\" | Untested fixes don't stick. Test first proves it. |\n| \"Multiple fixes at once saves time\" | Can't isolate what worked. Causes new bugs. |\n| \"Reference too long, I'll adapt the pattern\" | Partial understanding guarantees bugs. Read it completely. |\n| \"I see the problem, let me fix it\" | Seeing symptoms ≠ understanding root cause. |\n| \"One more fix attempt\" (after 2+ failures) | 3+ failures = architectural problem. Question pattern, don't fix again. |\n\n## Quick Reference\n\n| Phase | Key Activities | Success Criteria |\n|-------|---------------|------------------|\n| **1. Root Cause** | Read errors, reproduce, check changes, gather evidence | Understand WHAT and WHY |\n| **2. Pattern** | Find working examples, compare | Identify differences |\n| **3. Hypothesis** | Form theory, test minimally | Confirmed or new hypothesis |\n| **4. Implementation** | Create test, fix, verify | Bug resolved, tests pass |\n\n## When Process Reveals \"No Root Cause\"\n\nIf systematic investigation reveals issue is truly environmental, timing-dependent, or external:\n\n1. You've completed the process\n2. Document what you investigated\n3. Implement appropriate handling (retry, timeout, error message)\n4. Add monitoring\u002Flogging for future investigation\n\n**But:** 95% of \"no root cause\" cases are incomplete investigation.\n\n## Supporting Techniques\n\nThese techniques are part of systematic debugging and available in this directory:\n\n- **`root-cause-tracing.md`** - Trace bugs backward through call stack to find original trigger\n- **`defense-in-depth.md`** - Add validation at multiple layers after finding root cause\n- **`condition-based-waiting.md`** - Replace arbitrary timeouts with condition polling\n\n**Related skills:**\n- **craft:tdd-workflow-principles** - For creating failing test case (Phase 4, Step 1)\n- **superpowers:verification-before-completion** - Verify fix worked before claiming success\n\n## Real-World Impact\n\nFrom debugging sessions:\n- Systematic approach: 15-30 minutes to fix\n- Random fixes approach: 2-3 hours of thrashing\n- First-time fix rate: 95% vs 40%\n- New bugs introduced: Near zero vs common\n",{"name":5,"description":7},"main","479b264ec17cc5fafbf36287a1087472d3a386d3","plugins\u002Fsuperpowers\u002Fskills\u002Fsystematic-debugging",2,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FFabienSalles\u002Fclaude-marketplace","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FFabienSalles","https:\u002F\u002Ffabiensalles.com","2026-10-13 04:33:22",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":61,"prompt":71,"zipAvailable":72},[62,65,68],{"tool":63,"command":64},"npx","npx skills add FabienSalles\u002Fclaude-marketplace --skill systematic-debugging",{"tool":66,"command":67},"bunx","bunx skills add FabienSalles\u002Fclaude-marketplace --skill systematic-debugging",{"tool":69,"command":70},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add FabienSalles\u002Fclaude-marketplace --skill systematic-debugging","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FFabienSalles\u002Fclaude-marketplace\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fplugins\u002Fsuperpowers\u002Fskills\u002Fsystematic-debugging\u002FSKILL.md",true,[74,80,86,90,94],{"path":75,"resourceType":76,"resourceTypeDesc":77,"sizeBytes":78,"sourceHtmlUrl":79},"condition-based-waiting-example.ts","SCRIPT","脚本",5054,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FFabienSalles\u002Fclaude-marketplace\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fplugins\u002Fsuperpowers\u002Fskills\u002Fsystematic-debugging\u002Fcondition-based-waiting-example.ts",{"path":81,"resourceType":82,"resourceTypeDesc":83,"sizeBytes":84,"sourceHtmlUrl":85},"condition-based-waiting.md","REFERENCE","参考文档",3516,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FFabienSalles\u002Fclaude-marketplace\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fplugins\u002Fsuperpowers\u002Fskills\u002Fsystematic-debugging\u002Fcondition-based-waiting.md",{"path":87,"resourceType":82,"resourceTypeDesc":83,"sizeBytes":88,"sourceHtmlUrl":89},"defense-in-depth.md",3650,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FFabienSalles\u002Fclaude-marketplace\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fplugins\u002Fsuperpowers\u002Fskills\u002Fsystematic-debugging\u002Fdefense-in-depth.md",{"path":91,"resourceType":76,"resourceTypeDesc":77,"sizeBytes":92,"sourceHtmlUrl":93},"find-polluter.sh",1824,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FFabienSalles\u002Fclaude-marketplace\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fplugins\u002Fsuperpowers\u002Fskills\u002Fsystematic-debugging\u002Ffind-polluter.sh",{"path":95,"resourceType":82,"resourceTypeDesc":83,"sizeBytes":96,"sourceHtmlUrl":97},"root-cause-tracing.md",5419,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FFabienSalles\u002Fclaude-marketplace\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fplugins\u002Fsuperpowers\u002Fskills\u002Fsystematic-debugging\u002Froot-cause-tracing.md",[99,124,143,164,187,204],{"skillNo":100,"name":101,"nameZh":6,"description":102,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":103,"categories":104,"keywords":106,"publishedAt":47},"01M6DW2YS1MGF65JNS1QQ15QHS","vitest-test-conventions","ACTIVATE when writing Vitest tests, creating test files, using vi.fn()\u002Fvi.mock()\u002Fvi.spyOn(), or test factories. ACTIVATE for 'Vitest', 'it.each', 'NestJS testing module', 'supertest', 'vi.fn', 'vi.mock', 'spyOn'. Provides Vitest\u002FNestJS-specific testing patterns; cross-language testing principles (DAMP, AAA, spy over mock, what NOT to test) live in craft:testing-principles. DO NOT use for: node:test files (a file importing node:test) or a project whose tests run under node --test (see node-test:node-test-conventions), TDD workflow\u002Fiterations (see vitest:vitest-tdd-workflow), PHP\u002FPHPUnit tests (see phpunit:php-test-conventions).","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FFabienSalles\u002Fclaude-marketplace\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fplugins\u002Fvitest\u002Fskills\u002Fvitest-test-conventions\u002FSKILL.md",[105],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[45,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,30,116,117,118,34,119,120,121,122,123],"vitest","conventions","vitest test conventions","testing","writing","tdd","workflow","file","testing patterns","files","nestjs","activate","project","tests","module","fn","testing principles",{"skillNo":125,"name":126,"nameZh":6,"description":127,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":128,"categories":129,"keywords":133,"publishedAt":47},"01M6DW2VFE6NPFCGQKQ68P1MVZ","vitest-tdd-workflow","ACTIVATE when building new features, endpoints, or user stories using TDD with Vitest in a TypeScript\u002FNestJS context. ACTIVATE for '\u002Ffeature-tdd-dev', 'TDD', 'red-green-refactor' in TS context. Provides Vitest\u002FNestJS-specific TDD examples and commands; cross-language TDD workflow (cross-layer iterations, RED-GREEN-REFACTOR, working app, bug-fix-first-test, mocks-hiding-bugs) lives in craft:tdd-workflow-principles. DO NOT use for: node:test files (a file importing node:test) or a project whose tests run under node --test (see node-test:node-test-conventions), test writing conventions (see vitest:vitest-test-conventions), PHP TDD (see phpunit:php-tdd-workflow).","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FFabienSalles\u002Fclaude-marketplace\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fplugins\u002Fvitest\u002Fskills\u002Fvitest-tdd-workflow\u002FSKILL.md",[130],{"categoryNo":131,"categoryName":132,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000023","Skill与智能体开发",[112,113,134,107,135,111,136,114,137,138,30,139,116,118,34,140,119,120,141,142],"tdd workflow","vitest tdd workflow","dev","examples","fix","red-green-refactor","green","feature","app",{"skillNo":144,"name":145,"nameZh":6,"description":146,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":147,"categories":148,"keywords":149,"publishedAt":47},"01M6DW2RGMQE10D8C5Z5MA2RMY","ts-refactoring","ACTIVATE when refactoring TypeScript code. ACTIVATE for 'refactor', 'extract', 'redesign', 'simplify', or 'clean up' in a TypeScript \u002F Node \u002F NestJS context. This skill provides TS-specific examples for the cross-language refactoring rules defined in craft:refactoring-principles. DO NOT use for: writing new features from scratch, general OOP patterns (see ts-oop).","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FFabienSalles\u002Fclaude-marketplace\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fplugins\u002Ftypescript\u002Fskills\u002Fts-refactoring\u002FSKILL.md",[],[150,151,111,152,153,137,154,155,156,157,158,30,159,160,161,117,162,118,34,163],"refactoring","ts refactoring","typescript","code","refactor","simplify","Rules","node","redesign","up","general","clean","craft","patterns",{"skillNo":165,"name":166,"nameZh":6,"description":167,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":168,"categories":169,"keywords":171,"publishedAt":47},"01M6DW2MHYXNBBVYEGB058Y48J","ts-ports-adapters","ACTIVATE when a TypeScript codebase with no dependency-injection container has to declare a port and wire its adapter — a repository, a clock, an id generator, an event dispatcher the domain depends on. ACTIVATE for 'port', 'adapter', 'SPI', 'dependency inversion' or 'composition root' in a codebase that wires its dependencies by hand. Covers: the port as a type of functions in the domain layer, the adapter as an object literal annotated with it, the handler that takes its dependencies first and its data second, the composition root in the infrastructure layer, and the in-memory stub that substitutes for the adapter in a unit test. DO NOT use for: NestJS, or any container-based DI with decorators and tokens (see nest-ddd-conventions), aggregate operations and smart constructors (see ddd-ts-fp), the Result type itself (see ts-functional).","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FFabienSalles\u002Fclaude-marketplace\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fplugins\u002Ftypescript\u002Fskills\u002Fts-ports-adapters\u002FSKILL.md",[170],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[172,173,174,45,175,176,30,177,178,117,179,118,34,180,181,182,183,184,185,186],"ports","ts ports adapters","memory","ddd","Composition","container","functions","Literal","dependency-injection","domain","tokens","as","type","id","adapter",{"skillNo":188,"name":189,"nameZh":6,"description":190,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":191,"categories":192,"keywords":193,"publishedAt":47},"01M6DW2GRXZFYT05HEDB26C9B8","ts-oop","ACTIVATE when designing TypeScript classes, and the value objects or collections modelled as classes, or when the user asks about object design, encapsulation, Tell Don't Ask, or Symbol.iterator. Provides TS-specific examples for the cross-language OOP rules defined in craft:oop-principles, plus TS-specific patterns (Symbol.iterator, branded types for primitive identifiers). DO NOT use for: a value object or an aggregate modelled as an immutable record rather than a class (see ddd-ts-fp), refactoring methodology (see ts-refactoring).","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FFabienSalles\u002Fclaude-marketplace\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fplugins\u002Ftypescript\u002Fskills\u002Fts-oop\u002FSKILL.md",[],[194,195,196,152,175,137,197,198,150,156,199,30,200,162,118,34,201,202,203,183],"oop","ts oop","design","methodology","immutable","ask","refactoring methodology","objects","record","collections",{"skillNo":205,"name":206,"nameZh":6,"description":207,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":208,"categories":209,"keywords":210,"publishedAt":47},"01M6DW2D26XG5MJMTP9MSE43S2","ts-layer-boundaries","ACTIVATE when wiring a Worker entry point, a Router, a controller, or a domain event consumer in a TypeScript CQRS codebase, or when deciding where a port belongs. ACTIVATE for 'composition root', 'layer boundary', 'ESLint zones', 'domain must not import infrastructure'. Covers: the *Worker.ts composition root, the curried consumer, Router wiring of command endpoints, the five-gesture controller, the domain-to-infrastructure import boundary enforced by ESLint, infrastructure-only ports, in-memory doubles for every port, the read-can-reach-write asymmetry, and read endpoints going through a domain handler. DO NOT use for: the port's own shape and adapter binding (see ts-ports-adapters), the Result type (see ts-functional), domain event structure (see ts-ddd-events).","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FFabienSalles\u002Fclaude-marketplace\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fplugins\u002Ftypescript\u002Fskills\u002Fts-layer-boundaries\u002FSKILL.md",[],[211,174,175,212,213,176,172,30,214,215,216,118,34,217,181,218,219,184,186,220],"ts layer boundaries","controller","boundary","router","only","endpoints","structure","cqrs","worker","import"]