Root Cause Analysis
Systematic approach to finding the true source of bugs, not just symptoms
Packaged view
This page reorganizes the original catalog entry around fit, installability, and workflow context first. The original raw source lives below.
Install command
npx @skill-hub/cli install rohitg00-skillkit-root-cause-analysis
Repository
Skill path: packages/core/src/methodology/packs/debugging/root-cause-analysis
Systematic approach to finding the true source of bugs, not just symptoms
Open repositoryBest for
Primary workflow: Ship Full Stack.
Technical facets: Full Stack.
Target audience: everyone.
License: Unknown.
Original source
Catalog source: SkillHub Club.
Repository owner: rohitg00.
This is still a mirrored public skill entry. Review the repository before installing into production workflows.
What it helps with
- Install Root Cause Analysis into Claude Code, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI, or OpenCode workflows
- Review https://github.com/rohitg00/skillkit before adding Root Cause Analysis to shared team environments
- Use Root Cause Analysis for development workflows
Works across
Favorites: 0.
Sub-skills: 0.
Aggregator: No.
Original source / Raw SKILL.md
--- name: Root Cause Analysis description: Systematic approach to finding the true source of bugs, not just symptoms version: 1.0.0 triggers: - root cause - debugging - find the bug - why is this happening - investigate issue - bug investigation tags: - debugging - investigation - problem-solving - systematic difficulty: intermediate estimatedTime: 20 relatedSkills: - debugging/trace-and-isolate - debugging/hypothesis-testing --- # Root Cause Analysis You are performing systematic root cause analysis to find the true source of a bug. Do not apply fixes until you understand WHY the bug exists. ## Core Principle **Never fix a symptom. Always find and fix the root cause.** A root cause is the earliest point in the causal chain where intervention could prevent the defect. ## The Five Whys Method Ask "Why?" repeatedly to drill down to the root cause: 1. **Why** did the API return an error? → The database query failed 2. **Why** did the database query fail? → The connection timed out 3. **Why** did the connection time out? → The connection pool was exhausted 4. **Why** was the connection pool exhausted? → Connections weren't being released 5. **Why** weren't connections being released? → **ROOT CAUSE:** Missing `finally` block to close connections ## Investigation Phases ### Phase 1: Reproduce the Bug Before investigating: 1. **Reproduce consistently** - If you can't reproduce it, you can't verify a fix 2. **Document reproduction steps** - Exact sequence of actions 3. **Note environment details** - OS, versions, configuration 4. **Identify minimal reproduction** - Smallest case that shows the bug Questions to answer: - Does it happen every time or intermittently? - Does it happen in all environments? - When did it start happening? (recent changes) ### Phase 2: Gather Evidence Collect information before forming theories: ``` Evidence Types: ├── Error messages and stack traces ├── Log files (application, system, database) ├── Recent code changes (git log, blame) ├── User reports and reproduction steps ├── Monitoring data (metrics, APM) └── Related issues (search issue tracker) ``` Do NOT: - Make changes while gathering evidence - Assume you know the cause without evidence - Ignore related symptoms ### Phase 3: Form Hypotheses Based on evidence, create ranked hypotheses: | Priority | Hypothesis | Evidence | Test Plan | |----------|------------|----------|-----------| | 1 | Connection leak in UserService | Stack trace shows connection pool | Add logging, check usage | | 2 | Query timeout too short | Occurs under load | Test with longer timeout | | 3 | Database server overload | Correlates with peak hours | Check DB metrics | For each hypothesis: - What evidence supports it? - What evidence contradicts it? - How can we test it? ### Phase 4: Test Hypotheses Test each hypothesis systematically: 1. **Start with highest probability** 2. **Design a definitive test** - Should clearly confirm or reject 3. **Make ONE change at a time** 4. **Document results** If hypothesis is rejected: - Cross it off the list - Re-evaluate remaining hypotheses - Consider if new evidence suggests new hypotheses ### Phase 5: Verify Root Cause Before declaring root cause found: - [ ] Can you explain the full causal chain? - [ ] Does fixing it consistently prevent the bug? - [ ] Does it explain ALL observed symptoms? - [ ] Is there nothing earlier in the chain that could be fixed? ## Common Root Cause Categories ### Code Defects - Logic errors - Boundary conditions - Race conditions - Resource leaks - Null/undefined handling ### Design Issues - Missing error handling - Inadequate validation - Poor state management - Coupling issues ### Environment - Configuration errors - Resource constraints - Version mismatches - Network issues ### Data Issues - Invalid input data - Data corruption - Schema mismatches - Encoding problems ## Evidence Collection Commands ```bash # Recent changes to relevant files git log --oneline -20 -- path/to/file # Who changed this line git blame path/to/file # Changes since last working version git diff v1.2.3..HEAD -- src/ # Search for related error handling grep -r "catch\|error\|throw" --include="*.ts" src/ ``` ## Red Flags - You Haven't Found Root Cause - "I'm not sure why, but this fix works" - "The bug went away after I restarted" - "I added a check to prevent this case" - "It's probably a race condition somewhere" These suggest symptom treatment, not root cause resolution. ## Documentation Template When root cause is found, document: ```markdown ## Bug: [Description] ### Root Cause [Clear explanation of why the bug occurred] ### Evidence - [Evidence 1] - [Evidence 2] ### Causal Chain 1. [Initial trigger] 2. [Intermediate cause] 3. [Root cause] 4. [Observed symptom] ### Fix [Description of the fix and why it addresses root cause] ### Prevention [How to prevent similar issues in the future] ``` ## Integration with Other Skills After finding root cause: - Use **testing/red-green-refactor** to write a test that exposes the bug - Use **planning/verification-gates** to validate the fix - Consider **collaboration/structured-review** for complex fixes