torbjorn/my-pal-mcp-server
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Improved debugging workflow and prompts

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Fahad
2025-06-19 17:49:39 +04:00
parent 7900fdd21c
commit f1ffa38cf2
1 changed files with 28 additions and 15 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

43
tools/debug.py
View File

@@ -22,12 +22,14 @@ logger = logging.getLogger(__name__)
DEBUG_INVESTIGATION_FIELD_DESCRIPTIONS = {
"step": (
"Describe what you're currently investigating by thinking deeply about the issue and its possible causes. "
"In step 1, clearly state the issue and begin forming an investigative direction. Consider not only obvious "
"failures, but also subtle contributing factors like upstream logic, invalid inputs, missing preconditions, "
"or hidden side effects. Map out the flow of related functions or modules. Identify call paths where input "
"values or branching logic could cause instability. In concurrent systems, watch for race conditions, shared "
"state, or timing dependencies. In all later steps, continue exploring with precision: trace deeper "
"dependencies, verify hypotheses, and adapt your understanding as you uncover more evidence."
"In step 1, clearly state the issue and begin forming an investigative direction. CRITICAL: Remember that "
"reported symptoms might originate from code far from where they manifest. Also be aware that after thorough "
"investigation, you might find NO BUG EXISTS - it could be a misunderstanding or expectation mismatch. "
"Consider not only obvious failures, but also subtle contributing factors like upstream logic, invalid inputs, "
"missing preconditions, or hidden side effects. Map out the flow of related functions or modules. Identify "
"call paths where input values or branching logic could cause instability. In concurrent systems, watch for "
"race conditions, shared state, or timing dependencies. In all later steps, continue exploring with precision: "
"trace deeper dependencies, verify hypotheses, and adapt your understanding as you uncover more evidence."
),
"step_number": (
"The index of the current step in the investigation sequence, beginning at 1. Each step should build upon or "
@@ -43,7 +45,9 @@ DEBUG_INVESTIGATION_FIELD_DESCRIPTIONS = {
"findings": (
"Summarize everything discovered in this step. Include new clues, unexpected behavior, evidence from code or "
"logs, or disproven theories. Be specific and avoid vague language—document what you now know and how it "
"affects your hypothesis. In later steps, confirm or disprove past findings with reason."
"affects your hypothesis. IMPORTANT: If you find no evidence supporting the reported issue after thorough "
"investigation, document this clearly. Finding 'no bug' is a valid outcome if the investigation was comprehensive. "
"In later steps, confirm or disprove past findings with reason."
),
"files_checked": (
"List all files (as absolute paths, do not clip or shrink file names) examined during the investigation so far. "
@@ -60,8 +64,11 @@ DEBUG_INVESTIGATION_FIELD_DESCRIPTIONS = {
),
"hypothesis": (
"A concrete theory for what's causing the issue based on the evidence so far. This can include suspected "
"failures, incorrect assumptions, or violated constraints. You are encouraged to revise or abandon it in later "
"steps as needed."
"failures, incorrect assumptions, or violated constraints. VALID HYPOTHESES INCLUDE: 'No bug found - possible "
"user misunderstanding' or 'Symptoms appear unrelated to any code issue' if evidence supports this. When "
"no bug is found, consider suggesting: 'Recommend discussing with thought partner/engineering assistant for "
"clarification of expected behavior.' You are encouraged to revise or abandon hypotheses in later steps as "
"needed based on evidence."
),
"confidence": (
"Indicate your current confidence in the hypothesis. Use: 'exploring' (starting out), 'low' (early idea), "
@@ -448,10 +455,12 @@ class DebugIssueTool(BaseTool):
]
response_data["next_steps"] = (
f"MANDATORY: DO NOT call the debug tool again immediately. You MUST first investigate "
f"the codebase using appropriate tools. Search for relevant code, examine implementations, "
f"understand the logic flow. Only call debug again AFTER you have gathered concrete evidence "
f"and examined actual code. When you call debug next time, use step_number: {request.step_number + 1} "
f"and report the specific files you've examined and findings you've discovered."
f"the codebase using appropriate tools. CRITICAL AWARENESS: The reported symptoms might be "
f"caused by issues elsewhere in the code, not where symptoms appear. Also, after thorough "
f"investigation, it's possible NO BUG EXISTS - the issue might be a misunderstanding or "
f"user expectation mismatch. Search broadly, examine implementations, understand the logic flow. "
f"Only call debug again AFTER gathering concrete evidence. When you call debug next time, "
f"use step_number: {request.step_number + 1} and report specific files examined and findings discovered."
)
elif request.step_number >= 2 and request.confidence in ["exploring", "low"]:
# Need deeper investigation
@@ -484,7 +493,10 @@ class DebugIssueTool(BaseTool):
f"2. Trace backwards: how does data get to this point? What transforms it?\n"
f"3. Check all assumptions: are inputs validated? Are nulls handled?\n"
f"4. Look for the EXACT line where expected != actual behavior\n"
f"Document these findings with specific file:line references, then call debug with step_number: {request.step_number + 1}."
f"REMEMBER: If you cannot find concrete evidence of a bug causing the reported symptoms, "
f"'no bug found' is a valid conclusion. Consider suggesting discussion with your thought partner "
f"or engineering assistant for clarification. Document findings with specific file:line references, "
f"then call debug with step_number: {request.step_number + 1}."
)
else:
# General investigation needed
@@ -498,7 +510,8 @@ class DebugIssueTool(BaseTool):
f"PAUSE INVESTIGATION. Before calling debug step {request.step_number + 1}, you MUST examine code. "
f"Required: Read files from your files_checked list, search for patterns in your hypothesis, "
f"trace execution flow. Your next debug call (step_number: {request.step_number + 1}) must include "
f"NEW evidence from actual code examination, not just theories. NO recursive debug calls without investigation work!"
f"NEW evidence from actual code examination, not just theories. If no bug evidence is found, suggesting "
f"collaboration with thought partner is valuable. NO recursive debug calls without investigation work!"
)
# Store in conversation memory