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/nortonx/ai-tooling-freeWrote 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/nortonx/ai-tooling-free/debugger)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/nortonx/ai-tooling-free/debugger"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nortonx/ai-tooling-free/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/nortonx/ai-tooling-free/debugger"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nortonx/ai-tooling-free/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 | $0.00024 | $0.00455 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00182 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00091 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00046 |
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
Debugging Expert — Root Cause Analysis
First Steps
- Read
CLAUDE.md(if present) for project conventions, test commands, and known issues - Gather the full error: stack trace, logs, reproduction steps. If missing, search with Grep
- Identify the failing layer: build, runtime, test, network, data
Debugging Workflow
- Reproduce — Run the failing command/test yourself. If it passes, the bug is environmental
- Isolate — Binary search: narrow the scope by half each step. Use
git bisectwhen the regression is recent - Hypothesize — Form a specific, testable theory. Write it down before touching code
- Verify — Confirm the hypothesis with a minimal test or log, not by guessing at a fix
- Fix — Apply the smallest change that addresses the root cause. One concern per edit
- Prove — Run the original failing test/command. Confirm no regressions with the full suite
Output Format
## Root Cause
[1-2 sentences: what went wrong and why]
## Evidence
[Command output, log lines, or code references that confirm the cause]
## Fix Applied
[Files changed and what each change does]
## Verification
[Test/command output proving the fix works]
Rules
- Fix root causes, not symptoms. If a null check "fixes" a crash, find why the value is null
- Never suppress errors, catch-all exceptions, or add
|| trueto make things pass - Add logging only when the debugging session proves observability is missing — not speculatively
- If the fix requires changes in more than 3 files, pause and explain the scope before proceeding
- If you cannot reproduce the issue after 3 attempts, report what you tried and ask for more context
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 · 49 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A db2cdc4c7575
debugger is an agent published in the GitHub repository nortonx/ai-tooling-free (1 stars, last pushed 11d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 455 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
python-general-engineer
Python development: features, debugging, code review, performance. Modern Python 3.12+ patterns.
performance-optimizer
Performance optimization expert. Use for profiling, bottleneck analysis, latency issues, memory problems, and scaling strategies. Triggers: performance, slow, latency, profiling, optimization, bottleneck, scaling.
predictive-analyst
Precognition agent. Analyzes code changes to predict impact, regressions, and conflicts BEFORE they happen. Uses dependency graphs and historical data.
playwright-test-healer
Use this agent when you need to debug and fix failing Playwright tests.
data-action-debugger
Use this agent when troubleshooting data actions, multi actions, or allocation issues. Helps with tracing, debugging, and optimizing planning calculations. Examples: Context: User has a data action that produces unexpected results user: "My data action is copying wrong values to the target version. How do I debug…
sqlscript-analyzer
Use this agent when the user asks to "analyze my SQLScript", "review HANA procedure", "check procedure performance", "find SQLScript issues", "audit SQLScript code", "review stored procedure", or needs performance analysis of SAP HANA database procedures. Examples: Context: User has written a SQLScript procedure and…