Team Debug

Team Debug

Debug complex issues using the Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) methodology. Multiple debugger agents investigate different hypotheses in parallel, gathering evidence to confirm or falsify each one.

Pre-flight Checks

1. Verify CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS=1 is set
2. Parse $ARGUMENTS:
   • <error-description-or-file>: description of the bug, error message, or path to a file exhibiting the issue
   • --hypotheses N: number of hypotheses to generate (default: 3)
   • --scope: investigation scope — files (specific files), module (module/package), project (entire project)

Phase 1: Initial Triage

1. Analyze the error description or file:
   • If file path: read the file, look for obvious issues, collect error context
   • If error description: search the codebase for related code, error messages, stack traces
2. Identify the symptom clearly: what is failing, when, and how
3. Gather initial context: recent git changes, related tests, configuration

Phase 2: Hypothesis Generation

Generate N hypotheses about the root cause, covering different failure mode categories:

1. Logic Error — Incorrect algorithm, wrong condition, off-by-one, missing edge case
2. Data Issue — Invalid input, type mismatch, null/undefined, encoding problem
3. State Problem — Race condition, stale cache, incorrect initialization, mutation bug
4. Integration Failure — API contract violation, version mismatch, configuration error
5. Resource Issue — Memory leak, connection exhaustion, timeout, disk space
6. Environment — Missing dependency, wrong version, platform-specific behavior

Present hypotheses to user: "Generated {N} hypotheses. Spawning investigators..."

Phase 3: Investigation

1. Use TeamCreate tool to create the team with team_name: "debug-{timestamp}" and description
2. For each hypothesis, use Agent tool to spawn a teammate:
   • name: investigator-{n} (e.g., "investigator-1")
   • subagent_type: "agent-teams:team-debugger"
   • prompt: Include the hypothesis, investigation scope, and relevant context
3. Use TaskCreate for each investigator's task:
   • Subject: "Investigate hypothesis: {hypothesis summary}"
   • Description: Full hypothesis statement, scope boundaries, evidence criteria

Phase 4: Evidence Collection

1. Monitor TaskList for completion
2. As investigators complete, collect their evidence reports
3. Track: "{completed}/{total} investigations complete"

Phase 5: Arbitration

1. Compare findings across all investigators:

   • Which hypotheses were confirmed (high confidence)?
   • Which were falsified (contradicting evidence)?
   • Which are inconclusive (insufficient evidence)?

2. Rank confirmed hypotheses by:

   • Confidence level (High > Medium > Low)
   • Strength of causal chain
   • Amount of supporting evidence
   • Absence of contradicting evidence

3. Present root cause analysis:

   ## Debug Report: {error description}
   
   ### Root Cause (Most Likely)
   **Hypothesis**: {description}
   **Confidence**: {High/Medium/Low}
   **Evidence**: {summary with file:line citations}
   **Causal Chain**: {step-by-step from cause to symptom}
   
   ### Recommended Fix
   {specific fix with code changes}
   
   ### Other Hypotheses
   - {hypothesis 2}: {status} — {brief evidence summary}
   - {hypothesis 3}: {status} — {brief evidence summary}
   

Phase 6: Cleanup

1. Send shutdown_request to all investigators
2. Call TeamDelete to remove team resources