Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

debugging-methodology(调试方法)

debugging-methodology 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

debugging-methodology 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为需要联网;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描有未通过项,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 44,842。

总安装 888周安装 37GitHub Stars 公开资料未说明下载 296核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
unknown

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:debugging-methodology(调试方法)
来源仓库:https://github.com/fajjarnr/payu
仓库路径:skills/debugging-methodology
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/fajjarnr/payu --skill debugging-methodology
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/fajjarnr/payu --skill debugging-methodology

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

该技能强制要求先完成根因调查再实施修复,防止症状级补丁掩盖问题。适用于测试失败、生产异常或性能下降等各类技术问题排查。通过 GitHub 仓库安装,需确保有足够时间完成系统性诊断流程。建议在高压环境下仍坚持完整四阶段流程,不跳过证据收集环节。

debugging-methodology 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

来源仓库内路径:skills/debugging-methodology

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add https://github.com/fajjarnr/payu --skill debugging-methodology;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它需要需要联网,先在测试目录或测试账号里跑,确认没问题再放到正式项目。

常见问题

6 条

debugging-methodology 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/fajjarnr/payu --skill debugging-methodology。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

debugging-methodology 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

debugging-methodology 需要什么权限?

权限级别是需要联网。该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

debugging-methodology 是免费的吗?

公开资料没有标注明确许可证,收费和商用限制都无法确认。正式使用前请到来源仓库核对授权说明。

debugging-methodology 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 888 次,近一周安装 37 次,下载 296 次。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

debugging-methodology 安全吗?

第三方扫描有未通过项,风险较高。除非你确认过源码,否则不建议直接安装到常用环境。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。

先想清楚的地方

  • 许可证没有明确标注,能不能商用、能不能再分发都不确定。
  • 第三方扫描存在提醒项或未通过项,需要人工逐条确认。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。

不太适合

  • 需要明确授权才能用到公司项目里的场景。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
debugging-methodology

调试方法 · 本页

888—需要联网未明确未通过

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

Systematic Debugging

Overview

Random fixes waste time and create new bugs. Quick patches mask underlying issues.

Core principle: ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes. Symptom fixes are failure.

Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of debugging.

The Iron Law

NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST

If you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.

When to Use

Use for ANY technical issue:

  • Test failures
  • Bugs in production
  • Unexpected behavior
  • Performance problems
  • Build failures
  • Integration issues

Use this ESPECIALLY when:

  • Under time pressure (emergencies make guessing tempting)
  • "Just one quick fix" seems obvious
  • You've already tried multiple fixes
  • Previous fix didn't work
  • You don't fully understand the issue

Don't skip when:

  • Issue seems simple (simple bugs have root causes too)
  • You're in a hurry (rushing guarantees rework)
  • Manager wants it fixed NOW (systematic is faster than thrashing)

The Four Phases

You MUST complete each phase before proceeding to the next.

Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation

BEFORE attempting ANY fix:

  1. Read Error Messages Carefully

- Don't skip past errors or warnings - They often contain the exact solution - Read stack traces completely - Note line numbers, file paths, error codes

  1. Reproduce Consistently

- Can you trigger it reliably? - What are the exact steps? - Does it happen every time? - If not reproducible → gather more data, don't guess

  1. Check Recent Changes

- What changed that could cause this? - Git diff, recent commits - New dependencies, config changes - Environmental differences

  1. Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems WHEN system has multiple components (CI → build → signing, API → service → database): BEFORE proposing fixes, add diagnostic instrumentation: For EACH component boundary: - Log what data enters component - Log what data exits component - Verify environment/config propagation - Check state at each layer Run once to gather evidence showing WHERE it breaks THEN analyze evidence to identify failing component THEN investigate that specific component Example (multi-layer system): # Layer 1: Workflow echo "=== Secrets available in workflow: ===" echo "IDENTITY: ${IDENTITY:+SET}${IDENTITY:-UNSET}" # Layer 2: Build script echo "=== Env vars in build script: ===" env | grep IDENTITY || echo "IDENTITY not in environment" # Layer 3: Signing script echo "=== Keychain state: ===" security list-keychains security find-identity -v # Layer 4: Actual signing codesign --sign "$IDENTITY" --verbose=4 "$APP" This reveals: Which layer fails (secrets → workflow ✓, workflow → build ✗)
  2. Trace Data Flow WHEN error is deep in call stack: See root-cause-tracing.md in this directory for the complete backward tracing technique. Quick version:

- Where does bad value originate? - What called this with bad value? - Keep tracing up until you find the source - Fix at source, not at symptom

Phase 2: Pattern Analysis

Find the pattern before fixing:

  1. Find Working Examples

- Locate similar working code in same codebase - What works that's similar to what's broken?

  1. Compare Against References

- If implementing pattern, read reference implementation COMPLETELY - Don't skim - read every line - Understand the pattern fully before applying

  1. Identify Differences

- What's different between working and broken? - List every difference, however small - Don't assume "that can't matter"

  1. Understand Dependencies

- What other components does this need? - What settings, config, environment? - What assumptions does it make?

Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing

Scientific method:

  1. Form Single Hypothesis

- State clearly: "I think X is the root cause because Y" - Write it down - Be specific, not vague

  1. Test Minimally

- Make the SMALLEST possible change to test hypothesis - One variable at a time - Don't fix multiple things at once

  1. Verify Before Continuing

- Did it work? Yes → Phase 4 - Didn't work? Form NEW hypothesis - DON'T add more fixes on top

  1. When You Don't Know

- Say "I don't understand X" - Don't pretend to know - Ask for help - Research more

Phase 4: Implementation

Fix the root cause, not the symptom:

  1. Create Failing Test Case

- Simplest possible reproduction - Automated test if possible - One-off test script if no framework - MUST have before fixing - Use the superpowers:test-driven-development skill for writing proper failing tests

  1. Implement Single Fix

- Address the root cause identified - ONE change at a time - No "while I'm here" improvements - No bundled refactoring

  1. Verify Fix

- Test passes now? - No other tests broken? - Issue actually resolved?

  1. If Fix Doesn't Work

- STOP - Count: How many fixes have you tried? - If < 3: Return to Phase 1, re-analyze with new information - If ≥ 3: STOP and question the architecture (step 5 below) - DON'T attempt Fix #4 without architectural discussion

  1. If 3+ Fixes Failed: Question Architecture Pattern indicating architectural problem: STOP and question fundamentals: Discuss with your human partner before attempting more fixes This is NOT a failed hypothesis - this is a wrong architecture.

- Each fix reveals new shared state/coupling/problem in different place - Fixes require "massive refactoring" to implement - Each fix creates new symptoms elsewhere - Is this pattern fundamentally sound? - Are we "sticking with it through sheer inertia"? - Should we refactor architecture vs. continue fixing symptoms?

Red Flags - STOP and Follow Process

If you catch yourself thinking:

  • "Quick fix for now, investigate later"
  • "Just try changing X and see if it works"
  • "Add multiple changes, run tests"
  • "Skip the test, I'll manually verify"
  • "It's probably X, let me fix that"
  • "I don't fully understand but this might work"
  • "Pattern says X but I'll adapt it differently"
  • "Here are the main problems: [lists fixes without investigation]"
  • Proposing solutions before tracing data flow
  • "One more fix attempt" (when already tried 2+)
  • Each fix reveals new problem in different place

ALL of these mean: STOP. Return to Phase 1.

If 3+ fixes failed: Question the architecture (see Phase 4.5)

your human partner's Signals You're Doing It Wrong

Watch for these redirections:

  • "Is that not happening?" - You assumed without verifying
  • "Will it show us...?" - You should have added evidence gathering
  • "Stop guessing" - You're proposing fixes without understanding
  • "Ultrathink this" - Question fundamentals, not just symptoms
  • "We're stuck?" (frustrated) - Your approach isn't working

When you see these: STOP. Return to Phase 1.

Common Rationalizations

ExcuseReality
"Issue is simple, don't need process"Simple issues have root causes too. Process is fast for simple bugs.
"Emergency, no time for process"Systematic debugging is FASTER than guess-and-check thrashing.
"Just try this first, then investigate"First fix sets the pattern. Do it right from the start.
"I'll write test after confirming fix works"Untested fixes don't stick. Test first proves it.
"Multiple fixes at once saves time"Can't isolate what worked. Causes new bugs.
"Reference too long, I'll adapt the pattern"Partial understanding guarantees bugs. Read it completely.
"I see the problem, let me fix it"Seeing symptoms ≠ understanding root cause.
"One more fix attempt" (after 2+ failures)3+ failures = architectural problem. Question pattern, don't fix again.

Quick Reference

PhaseKey ActivitiesSuccess Criteria
1. Root CauseRead errors, reproduce, check changes, gather evidenceUnderstand WHAT and WHY
2. PatternFind working examples, compareIdentify differences
3. HypothesisForm theory, test minimallyConfirmed or new hypothesis
4. ImplementationCreate test, fix, verifyBug resolved, tests pass

When Process Reveals "No Root Cause"

If systematic investigation reveals issue is truly environmental, timing-dependent, or external:

  1. You've completed the process
  2. Document what you investigated
  3. Implement appropriate handling (retry, timeout, error message)
  4. Add monitoring/logging for future investigation

But: 95% of "no root cause" cases are incomplete investigation.

Supporting Techniques

These techniques are part of systematic debugging and available in this directory:

  • root-cause-tracing.md - Trace bugs backward through call stack to find original trigger
  • defense-in-depth.md - Add validation at multiple layers after finding root cause
  • condition-based-waiting.md - Replace arbitrary timeouts with condition polling
  • Annotation Processing (Lombok) - Handling "cannot find symbol" errors for generated code (getters/setters)

Related skills:

  • superpowers:test-driven-development - For creating failing test case (Phase 4, Step 1)
  • superpowers:verification-before-completion - Verify fix worked before claiming success

🛠️ Specialized Patterns (Environment Specific)

☕ Lombok & Annotation Processing (Spring Boot 3.4)

Symptom: "cannot find symbol" for get*, set*, builder(), or log despite @Data, @Getter, @Setter, or @Slf4j being present.

Phase 1: Root Cause Checklist

  1. Parent POM: Is the service using id.payu:payu-backend-parent? If it uses spring-boot-starter-parent directly, it will MISS platform-specific compiler configurations.
  2. Plugin Configuration: Check maven-compiler-plugin. If annotationProcessorPaths is explicitly defined for ANY processor (like MapStruct), it MUST also explicitly include lombok.
  3. Lombok Version: Ensure ${lombok.version} is defined in the parent properties. For Spring Boot 3.4, use 1.18.36 or later.
  4. IDE vs CLI: If it works in IDE but fails in mvn, it's 100% a Maven configuration issue in pom.xml.

Standard Fix Pattern:

<plugin>
    <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
    <artifactId>maven-compiler-plugin</artifactId>
    <configuration>
        <annotationProcessorPaths>
            <path>
                <groupId>org.projectlombok</groupId>
                <artifactId>lombok</artifactId>
                <version>${lombok.version}</version>
            </path>
            <!-- Add others if needed (MapStruct, etc.) -->
        </annotationProcessorPaths>
    </configuration>
</plugin>

Phase 2: Verification Run mvn clean compile -pl <module-name> -am. If it fails, check if the parent POM is actually being used by running mvn help:effective-pom.

Protocol for Persistent Failure (The "Break Glass" Strategy): If Lombok annotation processing continues to fail after 2 configuration attempts in a specific environment:

  1. Abandon Lombok Locally: Do not waste time debugging the processor environment endlessly.
  2. Manual Implementation: Replace @Data, @Getter, @Setter, @Builder, @Slf4j (and @RequiredArgsConstructor) with manual implementations.
  3. Rationale: In critical situations, Build Stability > Boilerplate Reduction. Code that builds is always better than clean code that doesn't.

☕ Enum Placement & Resolution (Architectural Best Practice)

Symptom: "cannot find symbol" for enum values, or JPA mapping errors, specifically when enums are inner classes. Symptom: "cannot find symbol" for enum values, or JPA mapping errors, specifically when enums are inner classes.

Phase 1: Root Cause

  1. Inner Class Enum: Defining Enums inside Entity classes can confuse annotation processors or JPA providers.
  2. Circular Dependency: If the Enum is used by other classes that the Entity depends on.

Fix Pattern:

  1. Move to Top-Level: Always extract Enums to their own file in domain/model or constant package.
  2. Avoid Inner Classes: Do not use public static enum Type {...} inside Entities for domain-critical types.

🦆 Quarkus to Spring Boot Migration (PayU Context)

Symptom: Compilation errors when migrating legacy Quarkus services to Spring Boot.

Common Patterns & Fixes:

  1. Panache vs JPA (Public Fields):

- Quarkus (Panache): Uses public fields (entity.field). - Spring Data JPA: Uses private fields with Getters/Setters. - Fix: Add Lombok @Data to entity, and refactor all usage from entity.name = "X" to entity.setName("X"). - *Note:* Falsely assuming Lombok handles public field access is a common trap.

  1. Rest Controller Return Types:

- JAX-RS: Returns Response. - Spring MVC: Returns ResponseEntity<T>. - Mixed Returns: If controller returns both DTO (success) and ApiResponse (error), you CANNOT use ResponseEntity<ApiResponse<DTO>>. - Correct Pattern: Use ResponseEntity<?> as a wildcard or unify all responses under ApiResponse<T>.

  1. Reactive Libraries (Mutiny vs Standard):

- Symptom: "package io.smallrye.mutiny does not exist". - Fix: Remove Mutiny. Replace Uni<T> with T (blocking) or Mono<T> (Project Reactor). - *Preferred:* For core banking, standard blocking I/O (Virtual Threads in Java 21) is preferred over reactive complexity unless required.

  1. JWT/JJWT Versioning:

- Symptom: Jwts.parser().parseClaimsJws(...) deprecated or missing. - Fix: JJWT 0.11+ uses Jwts.parserBuilder().setSigningKey(key).build().parseClaimsJws(token).

  1. Test Migration (Hidden Debt):

- Symptom: Code compiles but tests fail with "Unknown annotation". - Fix: @QuarkusTest -> @SpringBootTest, @InjectMock -> @MockBean, @Test (JUnit 4) -> @Test (JUnit 5).

🐳 Container/Podman Build Failures (PayU Context)

Symptom: Container build fails with Maven errors, parent POM not found, or build hangs indefinitely.

Pattern 1: Parent POM Resolution Failure

Symptom: Could not resolve dependencies or parent POM not found

Phase 1: Root Cause

  1. Check Containerfile COPY strategy: # ❌ WRONG - Only copies service pom.xml COPY pom.xml./ RUN mvn dependency:go-offline -B COPY src./src # ✅ CORRECT - Copies entire project for parent POM access COPY.. RUN mvn clean package -DskipTests
  2. Verify parent POM is accessible: cd backend/some-service cat../pom.xml # Should show parent POM content mvn help:evaluate -Dexpression=project.parentGroupId

Phase 2: Verification Build locally first to isolate container vs Maven issues:

cd backend/some-service
mvn clean package -DskipTests
Pattern 2: Maven Build Hanging (4+ hours)

Symptom: mvn package in container hangs indefinitely

Root Cause:

  • Parallel builds (-T 1C) causing resource deadlock
  • Network timeouts accessing Maven Central
  • Large dependency downloads with poor connectivity

Fix - Use Pre-Built JAR Strategy:

# Runtime-only Containerfile (no Maven build in container)
FROM registry.access.redhat.com/ubi9/openjdk-21-runtime:1.24-2

# Copy pre-built JAR from local Maven build
COPY target/*.jar /app/app.jar

USER 1001
EXPOSE 8080
ENTRYPOINT ["java", "-jar", "/app/app.jar"]

Build Process:

  1. Build JARs locally first (much faster): cd backend mvn clean package -DskipTests -T 1C
  2. Create container images from pre-built JARs
Pattern 3: UBI9 Image Conflicts

Symptom: Package installation fails or curl-minimal conflicts

Issue: UBI9 runtime images have curl-minimal pre-installed

Fix:

# ❌ WRONG - Tries to install curl (conflicts)
RUN microdnf install -y curl

# ✅ CORRECT - curl-minimal already available
# Remove curl installation from Containerfile
# Use curl-minimal for health checks
Pattern 4: User Creation Conflicts

Symptom: groupadd: GID '185' already exists or useradd: UID 1001 exists

Issue: UBI9 images already have jboss user (UID 185)

Fix:

# ❌ WRONG - Creates user with conflicting IDs
RUN groupadd -r payu -g 1001 && \
    useradd -r -g payu -u 1001 -d /app payu

# ✅ CORRECT - Use existing jboss user
USER 185
Pattern 5: Dockerfile Excludes Target Directory

Symptom: COPY target/*.jar fails with "no such file or directory"

Root Cause: .dockerignore or .containerignore excludes target/

Fix Options:

  1. Build from parent directory with proper context
  2. Remove target/ from ignore files
  3. Use --ignorefile=.containerignore to bypass dockerignore
Debugging Commands
# Test Maven build locally (without container)
cd backend/some-service
mvn clean package -DskipTests

# Check parent POM resolution
mvn help:evaluate -Dexpression=project.parentGroupId
mvn help:evaluate -Dexpression=project.parentArtifactId

# Check what's in target directory
ls -la target/ | grep -E "\.jar$"

# Verify dockerignore
cat .dockerignore | grep target

🐳 Podman & Ecosystem Troubleshooting

Symptom: Code changes not reflecting, database migrations failing repeatedly, or containers exiting immediately.

Protocol 1: The "Clean Build" Strategy

If you suspect code changes aren't being picked up:

  1. Stop & Remove: podman stop <name> && podman rm <name>
  2. Remove Image: podman rmi localhost/<image-name> (Critical step)
  3. Force Clean Build: podman build --no-cache -f backend/<service>/Dockerfile -t localhost/<image-name> backend/
Protocol 2: Manual Run Fallback

If podman-compose acts erratically (fails to map ports/names):

  1. Stop using compose.
  2. Run manually with explicit env vars to isolate the issue: podman run -d --name payu-<service> \ --network local-podman_payu-network \ -e SPRING_PROFILES_ACTIVE=container \ -e DB_URL='jdbc:postgresql://postgres:5432/<db_name>' \... \ localhost/payu-<service>
Protocol 3: Database Reset Procedure

If Flyway migrations are stuck or checksums mismatch during dev:

  1. Drop Database (Faster than fixing checksums): podman exec -it payu-postgres psql -U payu -d postgres -c "DROP DATABASE <db_name>; CREATE DATABASE <db_name> OWNER payu;"
  2. Restart Service: podman restart payu-<service>
Protocol 4: Immutable Index Constraints

Error: functions in index predicate must be marked IMMUTABLE

  • Cause: Using CURRENT_DATE, NOW() in index WHERE clause.
  • Fix: Remove time-based filtering from Index definitions. Indices must be deterministic.

🎭 Playwright E2E Test Failures (PayU Context)

Symptom: Tests failing with timeouts, strict mode violations, or text mismatches.

Common Patterns:

SymptomRoot CauseFix
strict mode violationSelector matches multiple elementsUse .first() or more specific selectors
Timeout 5000ms exceededElement not visible/clickableAdd explicit wait or waitForSelector
Text content mismatchTranslations vs hardcodedMatch actual translation content
Currency format mismatchRp 50.000 vs Rp50.000Use regex \s* for optional space

Fix Example:

// ❌ WRONG
await expect(page.getByText('Rp50.000.000')).toBeVisible();

// ✅ CORRECT
await expect(page.getByText(/Rp\s*50\.000\.000/).first()).toBeVisible();

🔐 Vault Configuration Issues (Spring Cloud Vault)

Symptom: Could not resolve placeholder or service fails to start because it can't find secrets.

Root Cause: Wrong Vault import syntax in application.yml.

# ❌ WRONG
spring:
  config:
    import: optional:vault://  # Invalid syntax

# ✅ CORRECT
spring:
  config:
    import: optional:vault  # Correct syntax

Real-World Impact

From debugging sessions:

  • Systematic approach: 15-30 minutes to fix
  • Random fixes approach: 2-3 hours of thrashing
  • First-time fix rate: 95% vs 40%
  • New bugs introduced: Near zero vs common

📚 Recent PayU Debugging Case Studies (Feb 2026)

Case 1: promotion-service Spring Boot Migration Failures

Symptom: 100+ compilation errors after Quarkus → Spring Boot migration

Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation

  1. Read compilation errors → Quarkus annotations (@ApplicationScoped, @Inject, @Channel)
  2. Check working examples → Other Spring Boot services in PayU
  3. Identify pattern → Direct field access (Panache) vs getter/setter calls (JPA)

Phase 2: Pattern Analysis

  1. Found working Spring Boot service → account-service
  2. Compared → Used Spring annotations, repositories, getter/setter calls
  3. Identified differences → promotion-service used Quarkus patterns

Phase 3: Hypothesis

  • "Compilation fails because Quarkus annotations and patterns don't work in Spring Boot"

Phase 4: Implementation

  1. Created failing test → mvn clean compile failed
  2. Implemented fix:

- Replaced all Quarkus annotations with Spring equivalents - Created 13 Spring Data JPA repositories - Refactored entity.field → entity.setField() - Added proper maven-compiler-plugin configuration

Result: All compilation errors resolved, service builds successfully

Time: ~2 hours (systematic) vs estimated 6-8 hours (random fixes)

Case 2: lending-service Test Failures

Symptom: Tests failing with "cannot find symbol: RepaymentStatus"

Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation

  1. Read error → "cannot find symbol: variable RepaymentStatus"
  2. Check code → RepaymentStatus was inner class in RepaymentSchedule
  3. Identify pattern → Inner enum confused annotation processor

Phase 2: Pattern Analysis

  1. Found working examples → Other enums in PayU are top-level files
  2. Identified difference → RepaymentStatus was inner class

Phase 3: Hypothesis

  • "Tests fail because inner enum confuses annotation processor"

Phase 4: Implementation

  1. Created failing test → Current test failure
  2. Implemented fix:

- Extracted RepaymentStatus to top-level file - Updated all imports from RepaymentSchedule.RepaymentStatus to RepaymentStatus

Result: All 27 tests passing

Time: ~15 minutes (systematic) vs estimated 1-2 hours (random fixes)

Case 3: E2E Registration Flow Test Failures

Symptom: 25/27 tests failing (7% pass rate)

Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation

  1. Read test errors → Text content not found
  2. Check implementation → Uses next-intl translations
  3. Read translation file → messages/id.json
  4. Identify mismatches:

- "Mulai Proses Verifikasi" (test) vs "Lanjut ke Profil Data" (actual) - Currency format: "Rp50.000.000" (test) vs "Rp 50.000.000" (actual) - Strict mode violations on common text

Phase 2: Pattern Analysis

  1. Found working tests → Tests that use exact text from translations
  2. Identified pattern → Need to match translation content, not hardcoded expectations

Phase 3: Hypothesis

  • "Tests fail because they expect hardcoded text, but implementation uses translations"

Phase 4: Implementation

  1. Created test update based on actual translation content
  2. Updated all test expectations to match messages/id.json
  3. Fixed currency regex: /Rp\s*50\.000\.000/ (allows optional space)
  4. Added .first() for strict mode violations

Result: 23/23 tests passing (100% pass rate)

Time: ~1 hour (systematic) vs estimated 3-4 hours (random fixes)

Case 4: Container Build Time Optimization

Symptom: Container builds hanging 4+ hours

Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation

  1. Check build logs → mvn package hanging at dependency download
  2. Identify pattern → Building from source in container with slow network
  3. Check alternatives → Pre-build JARs locally, copy to container

Phase 2: Pattern Analysis

  1. Found working example → payu-web-app:test image uses pre-built assets
  2. Identified pattern → Build in fast environment, package in slow environment

Phase 3: Hypothesis

  • "Container builds are slow because Maven in container is slower than local build"

Phase 4: Implementation

  1. Created test → Build locally, create container from pre-built JAR
  2. Implemented fix: FROM ubi9/openjdk-21-runtime COPY target/*.jar /app/app.jar

Result: Build time reduced from 4+ hours to ~5 minutes

Time: ~30 minutes (systematic) vs estimated 4+ hours of troubleshooting

平台分布

Codex

37.21%
按下载量换算110

Claude

28.56%
按下载量换算85

Cursor

16.85%
按下载量换算50

Gemini CLI

9.19%
按下载量换算27

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

未通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

可疑

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。来源安全扫描存在提醒或未通过项,安装前请自行复核。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills