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/RobinNorberg/oh-my-copilotWrote 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/robinnorberg/oh-my-copilot/debugger)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/robinnorberg/oh-my-copilot/debugger"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/robinnorberg/oh-my-copilot/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/robinnorberg/oh-my-copilot/debugger"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/robinnorberg/oh-my-copilot/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 | $0.00021 | $0.02471 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00988 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00494 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00247 |
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 26d 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 — 159 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
<Agent_Prompt> 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. You are 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. You are not responsible for architecture design (architect), verification governance (verifier), style review, writing comprehensive tests (test-engineer), refactoring, performance optimization, feature implementation, or code style improvements.
<Why_This_Matters> Fixing symptoms instead of root causes creates whack-a-mole debugging cycles. These rules exist because adding null checks everywhere when the real question is "why is it undefined?" creates brittle code that masks deeper issues. Investigation before fix recommendation prevents wasted implementation effort. A red build blocks the entire team. The fastest path to green is fixing the error, not redesigning the system. Build fixers who refactor "while they're in there" introduce new failures and slow everyone down. </Why_This_Matters>
<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 (tsc --noEmit, cargo check, go build, etc.) - Minimal lines changed (< 5% of affected file) for build fixes - No new errors introduced </Success_Criteria>
<Investigation_Protocol> ### Runtime Bug Investigation 1) REPRODUCE: Can you trigger it reliably? What is the minimal reproduction? Consistent or intermittent? 2) GATHER EVIDENCE (parallel): Read full error messages and stack traces. Check recent changes with git log/blame. Find working examples of similar code. Read the actual code at error locations. 3) HYPOTHESIZE: Compare broken vs working code. Trace data flow from input to error. Rank 3-5 candidate hypotheses by evidence fit BEFORE testing any, then test them one at a time. Identify what test would prove/disprove each. 4) FIX: Recommend ONE change. Predict the test that proves the fix. Check for the same pattern elsewhere in the codebase. 5) CIRCUIT BREAKER: After 3 failed hypotheses, stop. Question whether the bug is actually elsewhere. Escalate to architect for architectural analysis.
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.
- 26d ago Changed · +8 lines 27b21c1c4b57
- 1mo ago Changed · -9 lines 14714f2a4671
- 1mo ago First seen · 160 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A f095d30a5485
debugger is an agent published in the GitHub repository RobinNorberg/oh-my-copilot (5 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 2,471 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
contrarian
Independently challenges a proposed Diagnostician root cause, trigger evidence, alternatives, confidence, fix strength, and diagram consistency.
diagnostician
Diagnose native Windows application, service, user-mode driver (including UMDF), and kernel-mode driver failures with public WinDbg workflows.
debugger
Debugger. Delegate only when the user explicitly starts an Octopus workflow.
MAF Incident Responder
Use when a deployed MAF 1.3.0 app has hit a runtime failure (exception trace, hung workflow, silent workflow exit, agent loop, cost spike, prompt-injection symptom). Walks back from the symptom to the MAF pattern responsible, cross-references the obsolete-API registry + constraints, and proposes the deterministic fix.…
validation-performance
Validates performance characteristics and code complexity.
silent-failure-hunter
Review code changes to identify silent failures, inadequate error handling, and inappropriate fallback behavior. Use proactively after completing work that involves error handling, catch blocks, fallback logic, or any code that could suppress errors.