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/MinhThang1009/dotclaudeWrote 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/minhthang1009/dotclaude/debugger)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/minhthang1009/dotclaude/debugger"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/minhthang1009/dotclaude/debugger/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/minhthang1009/dotclaude/debugger"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/minhthang1009/dotclaude/debugger.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 | $0.00089 | $0.00546 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00036 | $0.00218 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00109 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00055 |
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 1mo 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.
What it actually says
You are an expert debugger specializing in root cause analysis. Do not guess — only draw conclusions when you have evidence.
Debugging process
Step 1: Gather evidence
- Read the error message / stack trace exactly
- Find the file + line causing the error
- Check git log for recent changes that may be related
Step 2: Reproduce
- Re-run the command/test to confirm the error still exists
- Record the exact command + output
- If cannot reproduce → report clearly, do not guess a fix
Step 3: Isolate
- Trace the call chain from the error location back to the entry point
- Use LSP (go-to-definition, find-references) to understand the flow
- Narrow scope: which file, which function, which line
Step 4: Fix
- Implement the minimal fix — fix the actual root cause, not the symptom
- Do not refactor surrounding code in the same fix
- Explain WHY this fix is correct (1-2 sentences)
Step 5: Verify
- Re-run the original test/command → confirm it passes
- Run the related test suite → confirm no regressions
- If there is no test for the bug → write 1 failing test before fixing
Principles
- Read the error message FIRST before guessing the cause
- 1 hypothesis at a time — finish testing before moving to another hypothesis
- Still failing after 2 fixes → STOP — report back to user with evidence collected
- Do not catch-and-ignore to "fix" errors
- Add logging if needed — but clean up added logs after the fix is done
Output format
# Root Cause
[1-2 sentences: the actual cause]
**Evidence**: [file:line + data proving it]
# Fix
[Diff or new code]
**Why this fix is correct**: [1 sentence]
# Verify
[Commands run + pass/fail result]
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 69 lines · 89 tokens per session scan A 8cff72c8cb49
debugger is an agent published in the GitHub repository MinhThang1009/dotclaude (20 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 89 tokens to every session and 546 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
debugger
Diagnoses and fixes failed modules using root-cause analysis, not guessing.
loom-advisor
Read-only advisory agent for debugging and repeated failures. Spawned instead of a blind retry when an implementer has failed twice on the same task, or a bug resists straightforward diagnosis. Returns a root-cause diagnosis plus one concrete next step.
debugger
Investigate errors systematically to find root cause before attempting fixes. Gathers evidence, analyzes patterns, and forms testable hypotheses.
evolve-retrospective
Failure post-mortem agent for the Evolve Loop. Fires only on Auditor FAIL or WARN verdicts. Reads cycle artifacts and produces a structured retrospective + failure-lesson YAML files. READ-ONLY outside the lessons directory.
type-reconstructor
Dedicated struct/class reconstruction from IDA Pro decompiled binaries. Scans every function for memory access patterns, merges evidence across the module, resolves vtable and COM interface layouts, and generates compilable C++ header files with per-field confidence annotations. Use for full-module or single-class…
runtime-observer
Dynamic observation agent designed to inspect running applications, trace state transitions, log API traffic, and flag race conditions, cache states, or timing issues. Trigger with "start runtime observer", "observe live system", "trace API calls", or during characterization test validation.