本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

parallel-debugging

Leverage concurrent terminal background processes to debug multiple independent failures simultaneously using ACH methodology. Use when you have 2+ failures across different subsystems.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md6.2 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Parallel Debugging via Concurrent Streams

Overview

When a test suite or system has multiple independent failures, investigating them sequentially in a single terminal is slow. This skill teaches you to spawn multiple concurrent workstreams (e.g. background bash processes) per failure domain, investigating them simultaneously.

Core principle: This is a concurrency layer on top of systematic-debugging, not a replacement. You must still follow the full four-phase debugging process for each stream.

When to Use

  • 2+ test failures across different files or subsystems
  • Multiple error types in logs from independent components
  • Post-refactor breakage across unrelated modules
  • Production incidents affecting separate services

When NOT to Use

  • Related failures — fixing one might fix others (investigate together first)
  • Shared state — concurrent terminal commands might interfere (e.g. mutating the same database table)
  • Unknown scope — you don't know what's broken yet (explore first, then go concurrent)
  • Single root cause suspected — one investigation is faster

Decision test: If fixing Bug A could possibly affect Bug B, they are NOT independent. Investigate sequentially to avoid tool tool conflict.

The Protocol

Phase 1: Hypothesis Generation (ACH)

Before dispatching agents, generate competing hypotheses:

  1. List all failures with their error messages, stack traces, and last-known-good state
  2. Group by domain — which failures share files, state, or call paths?
  3. Independence test — for each group, ask: "Could fixing group A change group B's behavior?"
    • Yes → merge into one investigation
    • No → independent, can parallelize
## Failure Analysis

| # | Failure | Domain | Files | Independent? |
|---|---------|--------|-------|-------------|
| 1 | `auth.test.ts` — token expired | Auth | `src/auth/*` | ✅ |
| 2 | `api.test.ts` — 500 on /users | API handler | `src/api/users.ts` | ✅ |
| 3 | `api.test.ts` — 500 on /users/me | API handler | `src/api/users.ts` | ❌ shares files with #2 |
| 4 | `db.test.ts` — connection refused | Database | `src/db/*` | ✅ |

→ Dispatch: 3 agents (merge #2 + #3)

Phase 2: Concurrent Investigation

For each independent failure domain, start a concurrent investigation stream:

  1. Background Terminals: Use your WaitMsBeforeAsync flag to run npm run test -- path/to/failing.test.ts in the background. Do this simultaneously for each independent domain.
  2. Concurrent Analysis: Check the status of all background commands concurrently. Read the logs side-by-side.

Constraint per stream:

  • Mentally partition your execution space: Workstream 1 only looks at Files A and B. Workstream 2 only looks at Files C and D.
  • Do NOT try to replace_file_content without strict certainty that the files don't overlap.
  • Every stream still requires the full systematic-debugging methodology: gather evidence, find patterns, form hypothesis, test minimally.

Phase 3: Result Synthesis

After all agents complete:

## Debug Synthesis

### Results
| Agent | Domain | Root Cause | Fix | Confidence | Cross-Domain? |
|-------|--------|-----------|-----|------------|---------------|
| 1 | Auth | Expired token TTL config | Updated config | HIGH | No |
| 2+3 | API | Missing null check on user.email | Added guard | HIGH | No |
| 4 | Database | Connection pool exhausted | Increased pool size | MEDIUM | Possible |

### Cross-Domain Discoveries
[Agent 4 noted: connection pool exhaustion could cause API timeouts under load.
This may be related to #2+3 under different conditions. Monitor after fix.]

### Integration Verification
- [ ] All agent fixes applied
- [ ] No file conflicts between agents
- [ ] Full test suite passes (not just fixed tests)
- [ ] Cross-domain discoveries documented as issues

Synthesis rules:

  1. HIGH confidence + no cross-stream overlap → apply fixes concurrently using batched replace_file_content calls.
  2. MEDIUM confidence → apply sequentially and test between each.
  3. Cross-stream discovery → stop concurrent execution, investigate sequentially.

Phase 4: Integration Verification

Non-negotiable after merging all fixes:

  1. Run full test suite (not just the tests each agent fixed)
  2. Check for new failures introduced by fixes
  3. Verify no files were modified by multiple agents
  4. Document cross-domain discoveries as issues for future investigation

Example: Real Session

Scenario: 6 failures across 3 files after refactoring

FileFailuresDomain
agent-tool-abort.test.ts3 (timing issues)Abort logic
batch-completion.test.ts2 (tools not executing)Batch processing
race-conditions.test.ts1 (execution count = 0)Race condition handling

Independence test: Abort logic, batch processing, and race conditions are separate subsystems. ✅

Dispatch: Start 3 concurrent run_command tests in the background using WaitMsBeforeAsync, each tracing their subsystem. Check command_status concurrently for all 3.

Results:

  • Stream 1: Replaced arbitrary timeouts with event-based waiting
  • Stream 2: Fixed event structure bug (threadId in wrong place)
  • Stream 3: Added wait for async tool execution to complete

Integration: All fixes independent, applied via batched multi_replace_file_content calls, full suite tested and green.

Common Mistakes

MistakeConsequenceFix
Parallelizing related failuresOne fix breaks another stream's assumptionsIndependence test FIRST
Mismatched file editsreplace_file_content fails with hash mismatchedEnsure file scopes are 100% independent
Skipping systematic-debugging phasesGuessing instead of investigatingRun the actual tests concurrently
Running tests on shared DBState leaks between background testsMock DB or run sequentially
Skipping integration verificationSilent regressions from fix interactionsFull suite after merge

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Audit and improve web accessibility following WCAG 2.1 guidelines. Use when asked to "improve accessibility", "a11y audit", "WCAG compliance", "screen reader support", "keyboard navigation", or "make accessible".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

RepairYourTech/cfsa-antigravity62026年8月16日 更新

Structured methodology for adversarial thinking — generating attack scenarios, abuse cases, race conditions, and security edge cases against specs and implementations. Produces spec-level gap items, not code-level fixes.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

RepairYourTech/cfsa-antigravity62026年8月16日 更新

Orchestrate multiple Antigravity skills through guided workflows for SaaS MVP delivery, security audits, AI agent builds, and browser QA.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

RepairYourTech/cfsa-antigravity62026年8月16日 更新

Master REST and GraphQL API design principles to build intuitive, scalable, and maintainable APIs that delight developers. Use when designing new APIs, reviewing API specifications, or establishing API design standards.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

RepairYourTech/cfsa-antigravity62026年8月16日 更新

Manage API versioning and evolution with URL/header/query strategies, deprecation workflows, breaking change classification, sunset headers, and consumer-driven contract testing. Use when designing versioning strategy, deprecating endpoints, or evolving API contracts.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

RepairYourTech/cfsa-antigravity62026年8月16日 更新

Analyzes codebase structure, data flow, module relationships, and key patterns to generate and maintain a living architecture document (ARCHITECTURE.md).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

RepairYourTech/cfsa-antigravity62026年8月16日 更新

RepairYourTech のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する