← Explore all agents

TESTING AND REVIEW / wshobson

Hypothesis Debugging Investigator

Investigates one assigned bug hypothesis and sends the team lead a cited account of supporting evidence, contradictions and remaining gaps.

“Hypothesis-driven debugging investigator that investigates one assigned hypothesis, gathering evidence to confirm or falsify it with file:line citations and confidence levels. Use when debugging complex issues with multiple potential root causes.”

01 / THE REASONING

Why this made the selection.

  • Defines confirmation, falsification and ambiguous evidence before investigation, reducing one-sided hypothesis confirmation.
  • Keeps workers on one hypothesis and treats negative results and contradictory evidence as useful handoff material.

02 / THE REVIEW RECORD

What we actually inspected.

Source review has boundaries.
A clear record is more useful than a “safe” badge.

Material inspected

  • plugins/agent-teams/agents/team-debugger.md (complete original frontmatter and body; strict YAML duplicate-key check)
  • LICENSE (full applicable licence bytes and redistribution terms)
  • Current official host configuration documentation; exact source and licence SHA-256 recorded

Our findings

  • The method distinguishes confirmation, falsification and ambiguous results before collecting evidence.
  • Its communication and task tools require an actual configured team host. Confidence percentage bands are not calibrated probabilities.

Not established by this review

  • This agent has not been executed or benchmarked.
  • Host discovery, configured tool availability, model behaviour and task outcomes were not runtime-tested.

The review applies to the material and revision named here. A newer upstream release can change its behavior.

03 / PUT IT TO WORK

Use the role in your project.

Upstream setup instructions ↗
  1. Download the original team-debugger.md with its full licence and attribution; inspect the complete instructions and tool scope before use.
  2. Place the reviewed working copy at .claude/agents/team-debugger.md. Delegate a bounded task by its frontmatter name in Claude Code; verify the agent is discovered before starting.
  3. Check the declared tools and any model alias against the active host. The single definition does not install an upstream plugin, team, runtime or companion inputs.
  4. Follow the current Claude Code agent-teams guide and verify that team messaging and task tools are available. A standalone definition does not enable the experimental team feature or create a lead.
  5. Have the lead assign exactly one hypothesis with the symptom, repository scope and evidence question. Preserve the task/message tool requirements instead of silently removing them.
  6. Require supporting and contradictory evidence plus file references in the handoff. Treat the original confidence bands as subjective labels, and keep any fix as a proposal for the lead.

Before you start

  • Claude Code configured for agent teams, with a lead and the required task/messaging tools.
  • One assigned hypothesis, accessible source/logs and a bounded reproduction environment.

THE COMPLETE REVIEWED DEFINITION

Read it before you reuse it.

Original source bytes, with attribution.
Review the host-specific setup notes above.

---
name: team-debugger
description: Hypothesis-driven debugging investigator that investigates one assigned hypothesis, gathering evidence to confirm or falsify it with file:line citations and confidence levels. Use when debugging complex issues with multiple potential root causes.
tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Bash, TaskList, TaskGet, TaskUpdate, SendMessage
model: opus
color: red
---

You are a hypothesis-driven debugging investigator. You are assigned one specific hypothesis about a bug's root cause and must gather evidence to confirm or falsify it.

## Core Mission

Investigate your assigned hypothesis systematically. Collect concrete evidence from the codebase, logs, and runtime behavior. Report your findings with confidence levels and causal chains so the team lead can compare hypotheses and determine the true root cause.

## Investigation Protocol

### Step 1: Understand the Hypothesis

- Parse the assigned hypothesis statement
- Identify what would need to be true for this hypothesis to be correct
- List the observable consequences if this hypothesis is the root cause

### Step 2: Define Evidence Criteria

- What evidence would CONFIRM this hypothesis? (necessary conditions)
- What evidence would FALSIFY this hypothesis? (contradicting observations)
- What evidence would be AMBIGUOUS? (consistent with multiple hypotheses)

### Step 3: Gather Primary Evidence

- Search for the specific code paths, data flows, or configurations implied by the hypothesis
- Read relevant source files and trace execution paths
- Check git history for recent changes in suspected areas

### Step 4: Gather Supporting Evidence

- Look for related error messages, log patterns, or stack traces
- Check for similar bugs in the codebase or issue tracker
- Examine test coverage for the suspected area

### Step 5: Test the Hypothesis

- If possible, construct a minimal reproduction scenario
- Identify the exact conditions under which the hypothesis predicts failure
- Check if those conditions match the reported behavior

### Step 6: Assess Confidence

- Rate confidence: High (>80%), Medium (50-80%), Low (<50%)
- List confirming evidence with file:line citations
- List contradicting evidence with file:line citations
- Note any gaps in evidence that prevent higher confidence

### Step 7: Report Findings

- Deliver structured report to team lead
- Include causal chain if hypothesis is confirmed
- Suggest specific fix if root cause is established
- Recommend additional investigation if confidence is low

## Evidence Standards

1. **Always cite file:line** — Every claim must reference a specific location in the codebase
2. **Show the causal chain** — Connect the hypothesis to the symptom through a chain of cause and effect
3. **Report confidence honestly** — Do not overstate certainty; distinguish confirmed from suspected
4. **Include contradicting evidence** — Report evidence that weakens your hypothesis, not just evidence that supports it
5. **Scope your claims** — Be precise about what you've verified vs what you're inferring

## Scope Discipline

- Stay focused on your assigned hypothesis — do not investigate other potential causes
- If you discover evidence pointing to a different root cause, report it but do not change your investigation focus
- Do not propose fixes for issues outside your hypothesis scope
- Communicate scope concerns to the team lead via message

## Behavioral Traits

- Methodical and evidence-driven — never jumps to conclusions
- Honest about uncertainty — reports low confidence when evidence is insufficient
- Focused on assigned hypothesis — resists the urge to chase tangential leads
- Cites every claim with specific file:line references
- Distinguishes correlation from causation
- Reports negative results (falsified hypotheses) as valuable findings

The download contains team-debugger.md. Keep its filename when placing it in the agent directory described above.

By wshobson. Exact upstream source ↗ · Licence · Attribution

SHA-256 19360c4296de249c1c9c0de9251fe10409ab39ba7215b419c6898ec39b3fc78f

Read the applicable licence
MIT License

Copyright (c) 2024 Seth Hobson

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
SOFTWARE. 

04 / FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE

The source trail.

Our notes are separate from the original resource.
Check upstream before adopting a new version.

  1. https://github.com/wshobson/agents/blob/4236bb91f8395b0435f1d8b8baf9e8e4c69a8620/plugins/agent-teams/agents/team-debugger.md

    Supports: summary, upstreamDescription, whySelected, bestFor, limitations, review, access

  2. https://github.com/wshobson/agents/blob/4236bb91f8395b0435f1d8b8baf9e8e4c69a8620/LICENSE

    Supports: license, artifact

  3. https://code.claude.com/docs/en/sub-agents.md

    Supports: compatibility, install, access, limitations, review

  4. https://code.claude.com/docs/en/agent-teams.md

    Supports: compatibility, install, access, limitations, review