Dive

Dives deep into your project to investigate any question, from business logic to technical implementation. Uses layered search strategy to find evidence-based answers backed by documentation and code.

Philosophy

Why Dive?

Dive exists because assumptions are dangerous.

The core question isn't "how do I find the answer?" but "how do I know my answer is true?"

The Fundamental Problem:
├── Memory is unreliable (yours and the codebase's docs)
├── Code evolves faster than documentation
├── "I think it works like..." is not evidence
└── Only the current codebase tells the current truth

Evidence Over Intuition

Intuition: "This probably uses X pattern"
Dive:      "render.ts:273 shows reconcileKeyedChildren() implementation"

Intuition is a starting point, not an answer. Dive converts intuition into verified knowledge through evidence gathering.

Layered Search: Why This Order?

Layer 1: Documentation  → What the project CLAIMS to do
Layer 2: Code           → What the project ACTUALLY does
Layer 3: Deep Analysis  → HOW it all connects

Why documentation first?

• It's faster to read
• It gives you vocabulary for code search
• Discrepancies between docs and code are themselves findings

Why code second?

• Code is ground truth—it can't lie about what it does
• Tests show expected behavior in executable form
• Types reveal contracts and constraints

Why deep analysis last?

• It's expensive (time, context)
• Only needed when layers 1-2 don't converge
• Cross-component questions need tracing

Cross-Referencing Reveals Truth

When documentation says X but code does Y:

• The code is always correct about behavior
• The documentation reveals intent or outdated understanding
• The discrepancy itself is valuable information

This is not a failure of search. It's a success—you found something real.

Core Concepts

Evidence Has Hierarchy

Not all evidence is equal:

Source	Reliability	What it proves
Running code	Highest	Current behavior
Tests	High	Expected behavior
Implementation	High	How it works
Type definitions	Medium-High	Contracts
Comments	Medium	Developer intent
Documentation	Medium	Claimed behavior
Commit messages	Low-Medium	Historical intent

Multiple sources agreeing = high confidence. Single source = verify with another layer.

The Question Shapes the Search

Different questions need different approaches:

"How does X work?" → Start with code, verify with tests "Why is X designed this way?" → Start with docs/ADRs, check history "What calls X?" → Start with grep, trace references "When did X change?" → Start with git log, find the commit

Don't apply the same search pattern to every question. Let the question guide you.

Uncertainty is Information

When you can't find clear evidence:

• State what you searched
• State what you found (even partial)
• State what's missing
• Offer hypotheses, clearly labeled as such

"I couldn't find X" is a valid finding. It tells the next investigator where not to look.

The Dive Loop

1. Understand: What exactly is being asked?
      ↓
2. Search: Layer 1 → Layer 2 → Layer 3 (as needed)
      ↓
3. Collect: Gather evidence with file:line citations
      ↓
4. Synthesize: What do the sources tell us together?
      ↓
5. Respond: Direct answer + evidence + uncertainty

This isn't a checklist to follow blindly. It's a mental model for thorough investigation.

When Layers Conflict

Documentation says one thing, code does another. This is common. Here's how to think about it:

Situation	What to trust	What to report
Docs outdated	Code	Note the discrepancy
Feature removed	Code	Flag potential doc cleanup
Docs wrong	Code	Recommend doc fix
Code buggy	Neither	Flag as potential bug

The key: always report both, let context determine action.

Reference

Load these as needed, not upfront:

• reference/search-strategies.md - Detailed search patterns
• reference/code-search-patterns.md - Code navigation techniques
• reference/evidence-collection.md - Citation formats and templates

Understanding, Not Rules

Instead of memorizing anti-patterns, understand the underlying tensions:

Tension	Resolution
Speed vs Thoroughness	Match depth to stakes. Quick question? Layer 1 may suffice. Critical decision? Go deep.
Confidence vs Evidence	Never state confidence without evidence. "I'm 90% sure" means nothing without sources.
Intuition vs Verification	Use intuition to guide search, not to answer. Then verify.
Completeness vs Relevance	Answer the question asked. Note related findings briefly, don't digress.

The goal isn't to follow a procedure. It's to know when you know something is true.