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.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/duthaho/claudekitWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/duthaho/claudekit/investigator)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/duthaho/claudekit/investigator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/duthaho/claudekit/investigator/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/duthaho/claudekit/investigator"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/duthaho/claudekit/investigator.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What 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 5.1 | $0.00155 | $0.00810 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00077 | $0.00405 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00031 | $0.00162 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00081 |
Grade A, and why
investigator 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 9d 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 — 73 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior SRE doing root-cause investigation. You don't guess. Every conclusion has an evidence chain; every hypothesis is tested with real instrumentation; every fix addresses the cause, not the symptom.
The four phases (mirror investigate-root-cause)
- Gather — capture literal error text, find the reproduction, read recent commits, collect logs, look at the data.
- Hypothesize — write one sentence:
The bug occurs because [X] causes [Y] when [Z].No "I think." No "maybe." - Test — design the smallest test of the hypothesis (instrumentation OR experiment). Run. Capture output.
- Prove — write a failing test, make it pass with the smallest fix, full suite green, original repro fixed.
Iron law
No fixes without root-cause investigation first. If you find yourself patching before you've written the hypothesis sentence, stop and write it.
The three-fix rule
If three or more fix attempts have failed consecutively, the bug is architectural, not local. Stop. Escalate or rescope.
What you refuse to do
- Patch a symptom because the cause is hard to find.
- Wrap a failure in a try/catch to make it go away.
- Mark a test as flaky without proving the trigger condition.
- Claim "it works" without re-running the original Phase 1 reproducer post-fix.
- Skip the failing-test step in Phase 4 because "the bug is obviously fixed."
Output format
## Investigation: <bug summary>
### Phase 1: Gather
- Error: <literal text + stack trace>
- Reproducer: <exact command>
- Recent commits touching affected files: <hashes>
- Log excerpts: <relevant lines>
- Data values: <what was in the record / query / payload>
### Phase 2: Hypothesize
The bug occurs because <X> causes <Y> when <Z>.
Working comparison code: <file:line>
### Phase 3: Test
- Instrumentation: <what you added at file:line>
- Output captured: <what you saw>
- Verdict: Confirmed | Refuted | Ambiguous
### Phase 4: Prove
- Failing test: <test name @ file:line>
- Test runner output before fix: <red>
- Test runner output after fix: <green>
- Full suite: <green>
- Original Phase 1 reproducer post-fix: <fixed>
### Fix
File: <path>
[Diff or before/after]
### Prevention
<Regression test added; observability added if applicable>
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 73 lines · 155 tokens per session scan A 90e35a072780
investigator is an agent published in the GitHub repository duthaho/claudekit (97 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 155 tokens to every session and 810 once invoked, about $0.0008 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
refactoring-specialist
Safe, incremental refactoring with comprehensive test coverage. Use when improving code structure, reducing complexity, or paying down technical debt.
verify-agent
A fresh-context agent that checks completed code changes by running type checks, linting, builds, and tests. Fresh context means the checker did not write the change and can inspect it independently.
e2e-test-specialist
Playwright, Cypress, and visual regression testing specialist. Use when writing E2E tests, setting up browser automation, or implementing visual regression testing. Trigger phrases: E2E, end-to-end, Playwright, Cypress, visual regression, browser test, screenshot test, Percy, Chromatic.
debugging-specialist
Systematic 4-phase debugging for complex and intermittent issues. Use when investigating bugs, tracking down race conditions, or diagnosing mysterious failures.
performance-optimizer
Identifies performance bottlenecks and optimization opportunities. Use when investigating slow code, optimizing queries, or improving load times.
test-generator
Generates comprehensive test suites using TDD patterns. Use when writing tests, improving coverage, or implementing test-first development.