/pasteurize
A discipline for hard bugs. Skip phases only when explicitly justified.
When exploring the codebase, call the selected source-code backend directly according to
code-intelligence-routing.md
, and check
for any spec or design notes that touch the failing seam.
Portability reference:
../cheese/references/harness-portability.md
. It covers helper resolution, sub-agent dispatch, GitHub operations, and handoff transitions; prefer the bundled or repo-local helper first, and treat
as optional host-provided fallback.
The handoff blocks below are the portable contract; slash commands are host renderings, not the control model.
Phase 1 — Feedback loop
This is the skill. Everything else is mechanical. If you have a fast, deterministic, agent-runnable pass/fail signal for the bug, you will find the cause — bisection, hypothesis-testing, and instrumentation all just consume that signal. If you don't have one, no amount of staring at code will save you.
Spend disproportionate effort here.
Ways to construct one
To pick a loop shape, see
references/feedback-loops.md
for the ten-option ordered menu.
Iterate on the loop itself
Treat the loop as a product. Once you have a loop, ask:
- Can I make it faster? (Cache setup, skip unrelated init, narrow the test scope.)
- Can I make the signal sharper? (Assert on the specific symptom, not "didn't crash".)
- Can I make it more deterministic? (Pin time, seed RNG, isolate filesystem, freeze network.)
Non-deterministic bugs
The goal is not a clean repro but a higher reproduction rate. Loop the trigger 100×, parallelise, add stress, narrow timing windows, inject sleeps. A 50%-flake bug is debuggable; 1% is not — keep raising the rate until it's debuggable.
When you genuinely cannot build a loop
Stop and say so explicitly. List what you tried. Ask the user for: (a) access to whatever environment reproduces it, (b) a captured artifact (HAR file, log dump, core dump, screen recording with timestamps), or (c) permission to add temporary production instrumentation. Do
not proceed to hypothesise without a loop. Write a
handoff slug (see below) and stop.
Do not proceed to Phase 2 until the loop passes all four checks:
Phase 2 — Reproduce
Run the repro loop N times and verify the failure is consistent:
python3 skills/pasteurize/scripts/pasteurize.pyz repro-rerun --cmd "<repro-command>" --runs 5
Confirm the returned
and check
matches the expected failure mode. If
at N=5, the bug is flaky — increase
before proceeding.
Do not proceed until you reproduce the bug.
Symptom-shape gate
Before forming any hypothesis, classify the symptom shape:
- Clean stack trace + deterministic repro — stay at current tier, proceed to Phase 3 normally.
- Heisenbug, race condition, cross-module failure, or perf regression — warn to upgrade (harness-detected phrasing: claude + ; codex/OMP named equivalent; generic fallback) before forming any hypothesis. The extra tier buys the wider context window and reasoning depth these shapes need; do not start Phase 3 at the current tier once this branch fires.
Phase 3 — Hypothesise
Generate 3–5 ranked hypotheses before testing any of them. Single-hypothesis generation anchors on the first plausible idea.
Each hypothesis must be falsifiable: state the prediction it makes.
Format: "If
is the cause, then
will make the bug disappear /
will make it worse."
If you cannot state the prediction, the hypothesis is a vibe — discard or sharpen it.
Show the ranked list to the user through the host routing guide in ../cheese/references/handoff-gate.md
before testing. They often have domain knowledge that re-ranks instantly ("we just deployed a change to #3"), or know hypotheses they've already ruled out. Cheap checkpoint, big time saver. Don't block on it — proceed with your ranking if the user is AFK or running
.
Phase 4 — Instrument
Each probe must map to a specific prediction from Phase 3. Change one variable at a time.
Tool preference:
- Debugger / REPL inspection if the env supports it. One breakpoint beats ten logs.
- Targeted logs at the boundaries that distinguish hypotheses.
- Never "log everything and search".
Tag every debug log with a unique prefix, e.g.
. Cleanup at the end becomes a single content query through the selected search backend. Untagged logs survive; tagged logs die.
Perf branch. For performance regressions, logs are usually wrong. Instead: establish a baseline measurement (timing harness,
, profiler, query plan), then bisect. Measure first, fix second.
Phase 5 — Fix + regression test
Write the regression test before the fix — but only if there is a correct seam for it.
A correct seam is one where the test exercises the real bug pattern as it occurs at the call site. If the only available seam is too shallow (single-caller test when the bug needs multiple callers, unit test that can't replicate the chain that triggered the bug), a regression test there gives false confidence.
If no correct seam exists, that itself is the finding. Note it in the handoff slug as an architectural follow-up. The codebase is preventing the bug from being locked down. Skip the test write; do not paper over it. Phase 6's "what would have prevented this bug?" retrospective still applies.
Before writing the test, confirm the seam is correct: verify that the test you're about to write targets the boundary where the bug actually occurs — the real call site, the real data path, the real failure mode. A test at the wrong seam (too shallow, wrong abstraction level, mocked-away side that hides the failure) will pass after the fix but won't catch a regression. If you discover the seam is wrong at this point, treat it as "no correct seam": write the no-correct-seam halt string from
Early-stop conditions and route to
, per the halt path above.
If a correct seam exists:
- Turn the minimised repro into a failing test at that seam.
- Watch it fail.
- Apply the smallest production change that makes the test pass. No scope creep, no "while I'm here" cleanup. If the test still fails, revert and retry — but cap the retries (see After 3 failed fix attempts below).
- Watch the test pass.
- Re-run the Phase 1 feedback loop against the original (un-minimised) scenario to confirm the symptom is gone, not just the test seam.
After 3 failed fix attempts (3 cycles of "apply change → watch test → revert because test still fails"), stop attempting fixes and re-question the approach: is the hypothesis from Phase 3 actually correct? Is the seam exposing the right failure? Is the bug at a different layer than assumed? Step back to Phase 3 and generate a fresh ranked hypothesis list — do NOT attempt a 4th blind fix. If the re-questioning produces a new hypothesis, restart from Phase 4. If all hypotheses are exhausted, write the fix-attempts-exhausted halt string from
Early-stop conditions and route to
.
Broader implementation (related cleanup, follow-on changes, anything beyond the minimal fix) is
not pasteurize's job. Note it in the slug and let
pick it up in Phase 6's handoff.
Phase 6 — Cleanup
Before writing the handoff slug, confirm:
Then ask: what would have prevented this bug? If the answer involves architectural change (no good test seam, tangled callers, hidden coupling), note it in the slug under an architectural-follow-up line. The chain still runs; the user can pick up the architectural work via
after the fix lands. Make the recommendation
after the fix is in, not before.
Once the checklist is green and the slug is on disk, hand off to
(default). Cook --auto picks up the post-fix state, runs its taste-test against the applied diff for spec drift / readability / scope creep, produces its package-ready report, and triggers the autonomous
chain. Pasteurize itself does not commit, open PRs, or drive the chain — cook owns that.
Fan-out sizing
fans zero agents today.
size_pasteurize_fanout(bug_shape, score, deterministic_repro)
in
src/fanout/pasteurize_route.py
is the sizing policy for when it does.
The signal is inverted relative to review: a reviewer (
) reads a diff that exists — more diff, more agents.
instead reads the
score
descending, over the
suspect range (last-known-good..HEAD), not over a diff under review — less evidence means more agents, because the search space is what gets fanned over.
| Bug shape | Range | Repro | Agents |
|---|
| regression | tight (score <= 250) | deterministic | 1 (linear, no fan) |
| regression | tight (score <= 250) | non-deterministic | 2 |
| regression | wide (score > 250) | deterministic | 2 |
| regression | wide (score > 250) | non-deterministic | 3 |
| regression | score is (no diff to anchor to) | deterministic | 3 |
| regression | score is (no diff to anchor to) | non-deterministic | 5 |
| heisenbug / race / perf regression | any | any | 3 |
| cold bug (no diff to anchor to, score is ) | -- | deterministic | 3 |
| cold bug (no diff to anchor to, score is ) | -- | non-deterministic | 5 |
Boundary: the code checks
, so exactly
counts as tight (
), not
as a naive reading of "tight" might suggest.
Every constant above (
,
_REGRESSION_TIGHT_DETERMINISTIC_N
,
_REGRESSION_TIGHT_NONDETERMINISTIC_N
,
_REGRESSION_WIDE_DETERMINISTIC_N
,
_REGRESSION_WIDE_NONDETERMINISTIC_N
,
,
_COLD_BUG_DETERMINISTIC_N
,
_COLD_BUG_NONDETERMINISTIC_N
) is
reasoned, not measured. Unlike every reviewer threshold in the router -- each validated against 30 commits of real history -- these have no historical validation, because
fans zero agents today. They are named tunable constants and should be revisited once real runs exist.
On a bundle-only host,
is also reachable as
python3 skills/pasteurize/scripts/pasteurize.pyz pasteurize-route <request.json>
(JSON in, JSON out -- mirrors
's bundle convention).
Preferred tools and fallbacks
| Need | Prefer | Fallback |
|---|
| Code search / blast radius | semantic caller and dependency search | bounded text search with explicit precision loss |
| Reading code | fresh bounded read from the intended write backend family | native bounded read with snapshot/line anchors |
| Editing instrumentation | stale-safe anchored edit | LSP or native snapshot edit with stale-write detection |
| Diff visualization | | plain |
| GitHub context | | local git history or user-provided links |
| External sanity check | | clearly mark as an assumption |
Missing optional tools should not interrupt diagnosis.
Output
Return a short report covering:
- The named cause (one sentence, with / / calibration).
- The feedback loop (command, observed vs expected).
- Hypotheses considered and which one held.
- The regression test path and the fix's file:line footprint.
- Cleanup status ( removed, harnesses deleted or relocated).
- Suggested next skill — for the autonomous chain forward.
Handoff slug
Write a minimum-shape handoff slug to
.cheese/pasteurize/<slug>.md
so
(and any orchestrator) can resume without re-reading the full report. Schema:
markdown
status: ok | halt: <one-line reason>
next: cook | mold | done
artifact: <path-to-richer-report-if-any>
cause: <one-sentence named cause>
loop: <command or repro path>
seam: <regression-test path:line, or "none — architectural follow-up">
fix: <production diff footprint, e.g. "src/foo.ts:42">
follow_up: <architectural follow-up note, or "none">
<one-line orientation: what pasteurize converged on>
when the regression test is green, the original repro no longer reproduces, and cleanup is done.
when any early-stop condition fires — see
Early-stop conditions below.
is
for the standard chain,
if the diagnosis itself recommends an architectural spec instead of a per-bug fix, or
if the bug was caused outside the repo and no follow-up is needed.
Handoff
Pipeline: cheese (debug) → [pasteurize] → cook --auto → press → age → cure → plate
After the report is printed and the handoff slug is on disk, ask through the host routing guide in
../cheese/references/handoff-gate.md
which downstream to run. Lead each option with the verb (what the user wants to
do next):
- Validate and chain forward (recommended when ) — .
- Validate without auto chain — (cook runs taste-test, then the user picks each subsequent step).
- Spec the architectural follow-up first — (when
seam: none — architectural follow-up
).
- Stop — fix is in tree; defer the chain.
Pre-select
Validate and chain forward when
. The chain default is
because pasteurize already wrote and verified the fix; the work left for cook → press → age → cure is mechanical validation, not new authoring. Never auto-invoke; the user must still select.
When invoked with
, skip this host-routed question entirely and chain forward per
Auto mode.
Auto mode
skips Phase 3's user-ranking gate, skips the Phase 6 handoff gate, and invokes
directly. Phase 4–5 still run in full.
Early-stop conditions
- Phase 1 fails ( written, no loop achievable).
- Phase 3 disproves all hypotheses across two rounds (cap at two Phase 3 rounds, then halt).
- Phase 5's seam check finds no correct seam — write
status: halt: no correct regression-test seam
and route to instead of .
- The fix breaks an unrelated test that pasteurize cannot reconcile within scope.
- Phase 5's fix loop exhausts all hypotheses after 3 failed fix attempts — write
status: halt: fix attempts exhausted — architectural re-examination needed
and route to instead of .
In every early-stop case, write the halt slug and surface the report. Do not silently downgrade to "best guess".
Rules
- Do not skip Phase 1, and do not hypothesise without a reproducing loop.
- Phase 5 writes only the regression test and the minimal production change; broader work belongs in .
- Do not leave tags in the tree — clean them before the handoff slug is written.
- Do not claim "shipped". Pasteurize claims "cause named, regression green, fix in tree, ready for chain". The chain (cook → press → age → cure) claims shipped.
- If the bug exposes an architectural gap (no correct regression-test seam), say so in the slug. Do not silently paper over it.
References
skills/pasteurize/scripts/pasteurize.pyz repro-rerun
— run the repro command N times and emit {exit_code, reproduced, runs, failures}
(Phase 2).
skills/pasteurize/scripts/pasteurize.pyz debug-tag-sweep
— scan the tree for instrumentation tag prefixes and exit 1 if any survive (Phase 6 cleanup gate).