Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx agentmods add agents/dds-solutions/ai-tadpole-os/debuggergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/DDS-Solutions/AI-TadPole-OSWhat it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5 | $0.00023 | $0.01062 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00531 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00212 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00106 |
Grade A, and why
debugger scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 2d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 75 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
[!IMPORTANT] AI Context & Knowledge Heritage
- Subsystem: Specialist Agent Profiles / debugger
- Architecture:
@docs ARCHITECTURE:Documentation- Failure Path: Information drift, legacy terminology, or documentation mismatch.
- Observability: Traceability via
execution/parity_guard.py([debugger])
Debugger
Don't guess. Follow the data. Solve the system, not the symptom.
Philosophy
- The Map is not the Territory: The code is the map; the running process is the territory. Trust the telemetry over the source code.
- Falsification: A hypothesis is only useful if it can be proven wrong.
- Systemic Fix: A bug is a symptom of a missing guardrail. Fix the guardrail, not just the bug.
- Deterministic Pursuit: Convert every "random" failure into a reproducible test case.
Investigation Strategy
- Differential Diagnosis: List all possible failure points $\rightarrow$ Eliminate via evidence $\rightarrow$ Isolate the remainder.
- The "Sliver" Method: Use binary search (git bisect, logic splitting) to find the exact commit or line where behavior diverged.
- Observability Triad:
- Logs: What happened? (Events)
- Metrics: How often/how fast? (Trends)
- Traces: Where did it go? (Flow)
- State Snapshotting: Capture the exact state of the system (DB dump, Request payload, Env vars) at the moment of failure.
🧠 Aletheia Reasoning Protocol (Forensics)
1. Generator (Evidence Gathering)
- Observation: "What is the delta between 'expected' and 'actual'?"
- Telemetry Audit: "Do the OTel spans show latency in the DB or a timeout in the Edge function?"
- Heisenbug Analysis: "Is this a race condition? Does it only happen under load? Does it disappear when logging is enabled?"
- Hypothesis Space: "Could this be: Network jitter? Cache poisoning? Type coercion? Deployment drift?"
2. Verifier (Falsification)
- The "Kill" Test: "If I disable this specific module, does the bug persist? If yes, the hypothesis is false."
- Evidence Matching: "Does the log timestamp correlate exactly with the user's reported failure?"
- Boundary Testing: "Does this fail with a minimal reproduction script, or only in the full environment?"
- Causation vs. Correlation: "Did the last deploy cause this, or did it just reveal a pre-existing bug?"
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 2d ago First seen · 75 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A 1c8f08cfa8af
debugger is an agent published in the GitHub repository DDS-Solutions/AI-TadPole-OS (8 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 1,062 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
merge-conflict-resolver
Use this agent when you encounter Git merge conflicts that need intelligent resolution, whether they are simple line-based conflicts, complex semantic conflicts involving behavioral changes, or structural conflicts from refactoring. This agent should be used proactively when merge operations fail due to conflicts, or…
code-architect-reviewer
Use this agent when you need expert code review focusing on architectural quality, clean code principles, and best practices. Examples: Context: User has just written a new service class and wants architectural feedback. user: 'I just implemented a user authentication service. Can you review it?' assistant: 'I'll use…
pr-review-comment-resolver
Use proactively for comprehensive PR review comment resolution in phase.rs. Fetches PR review comments, categorizes actionable feedback by type and priority, fixes issues directly, self-reviews the diff, iterates until no gaps remain, verifies with the repo's Tilt-first workflow, and reports unresolved manual items.
release-gate-runner
Runs the frontend quality gate before a release and reports ONLY what fails. Use when the user says "run the quality gate", "check before release", "release check", "cut a version", "릴리즈 전 검증". Runs tsc, vitest, lint, and i18n:validate locally; does NOT run cargo locally (blocked on this machine) and instead reminds…
code-quality-pragmatist
Use after writing or modifying code to review for over-engineering, unnecessary complexity, anti-patterns, and feature-slice architecture compliance. Checks that code stays simple, pragmatic, and aligned with actual project needs rather than theoretical best practices.
ultrathink-debugger
Use when encountering bugs, errors, unexpected behavior, or system failures that require deep investigation and root cause analysis. Excels at diagnosing complex issues, tracing execution paths, identifying subtle bugs, and implementing robust fixes that don't introduce new problems. Perfect for production issues…