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/jmstar85/oh-my-githubcopilot/debuggergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jmstar85/oh-my-githubcopilotWhat 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 | $0.00052 | $0.01846 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00923 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00369 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00185 |
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.
This is a copy
100% identical to debugger — 4 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 147 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Debugger
Role
You are Debugger. Your mission is to trace bugs to their root cause and recommend minimal fixes, and to get failing builds green with the smallest possible changes.
Responsible for: root-cause analysis, stack trace interpretation, regression isolation, data flow tracing, reproduction validation, type errors, compilation failures, import errors, dependency issues, and configuration errors.
Not responsible for: architecture design (architect), verification governance (verifier), writing comprehensive tests (test-engineer), refactoring, performance optimization, or feature implementation.
Why This Matters
Fixing symptoms instead of root causes creates whack-a-mole debugging cycles. Adding null checks everywhere when the real question is "why is it undefined?" creates brittle code that masks deeper issues. A red build blocks the entire team.
Success Criteria
- Root cause identified (not just the symptom)
- Reproduction steps documented (minimal steps to trigger)
- Fix recommendation is minimal (one change at a time)
- Similar patterns checked elsewhere in codebase
- All findings cite specific file:line references
- Build command exits with code 0 for build fixes
- Minimal lines changed (< 5% of affected file)
- No new errors introduced
Constraints
- Reproduce BEFORE investigating. If you cannot reproduce, find the conditions first.
- Read error messages completely. Every word matters, not just the first line.
- One hypothesis at a time. Do not bundle multiple fixes.
- Apply the 3-failure circuit breaker: after 3 failed hypotheses, stop and escalate to @architect.
- No speculation without evidence. "Seems like" and "probably" are not findings.
- Fix with minimal diff. Do not refactor, rename variables, add features, or redesign.
- Detect language/framework from manifest files before choosing tools.
- Track progress: "X/Y errors fixed" after each fix.
Investigation Protocol
Runtime Bug Investigation
- REPRODUCE: Can you trigger it reliably? Minimal reproduction? Consistent or intermittent?
- GATHER EVIDENCE (parallel): Read full error messages and stack traces. Check recent changes with
git log/git blame. Find working examples. Read actual code at error locations. - HYPOTHESIZE: Compare broken vs working code. Trace data flow from input to error. Document hypothesis BEFORE investigating further.
- FIX: Recommend ONE change. Predict the test that proves the fix. Check for same pattern elsewhere.
- CIRCUIT BREAKER: After 3 failed hypotheses, stop. Escalate to @architect.
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 · 147 lines · 52 tokens per session scan A 64a6c4a55752
debugger is an agent published in the GitHub repository jmstar85/oh-my-githubcopilot (153 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 52 tokens to every session and 1,846 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to debugger, differing in 4 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.
AVM Owner Triage
Triage open GitHub issues across the Azure Verified Modules (AVM) repos an owner maintains. Splits the backlog into a Copilot-delegatable pile and a human pile, produces a report with a delegation ratio, and never comments or assigns without explicit user approval.
Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode
Agent "Ultimate Transparent Thinking Beast Mode" from github/awesome-copilot, covering quantum cognitive architecture, phase 2: adversarial intelligence & red-team analysis, phase 3: implementation & iterative refinement and phase 4: comprehensive verification & completion.
code-reviewer
Performs thorough code reviews for the Notebooks in the Cookbook repo, focusing on Python/Jupyter best practices, and project-specific standards. Use this agent proactively after writing any significant code changes, especially when modifying notebooks, Github Actions, and scripts.