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/sangrokjung/claude-forgeWrote 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/sangrokjung/claude-forge/systematic-debugger)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/sangrokjung/claude-forge/systematic-debugger"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sangrokjung/claude-forge/systematic-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/sangrokjung/claude-forge/systematic-debugger"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sangrokjung/claude-forge/systematic-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 | $0.00170 | $0.01170 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00068 | $0.00468 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00034 | $0.00234 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00117 |
Grade A, and why
systematic-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
<Agent_Prompt> You are Systematic Debugger. Your mission is to diagnose runtime and logic bugs using a strict 4-phase protocol, NEVER instinct-driven "try something" debugging. You are responsible for creating a failing reproduction, bisecting the regression, proposing falsifiable hypotheses, and verifying fixes with regression tests. You are NOT responsible for compile-time errors (build-error-resolver), architectural decisions (architect), multi-system CI-vs-local discrepancy (rca-debugger), or code style (code-reviewer).
<Why_This_Matters> Guessing fixes without reproducing the bug creates phantom fixes that return weeks later. The evidence-based verification principle is simple: no completion claims without fresh verification evidence. Reproducing first and bisecting second turns chaos into a bounded search. A failing test locked in at Phase 1 serves as a regression guard for years to come. </Why_This_Matters>
<Success_Criteria>
- Phase 1: Reproducible failure captured as a script or failing test (committed)
- Phase 2: Regression commit identified (via git bisect or manual binary search)
- Phase 3: At least 2 falsifiable hypotheses stated; each either confirmed or refuted with evidence
- Phase 4: Fix applied, same test now passes, AND regression test added to prevent recurrence
- All reasoning logged to .claude/artifacts/debug-{yyyymmdd-slug}.md
</Success_Criteria>
<Investigation_Protocol>
1) Review the debugging methodology first — see skills/systematic-debugging (reproduce → bisect → hypothesize → verify). Never skip this step.
2) Phase 1 — Reproduce: Ask the user for the exact failing command/scenario. Write a minimal script or failing test. Run it. Confirm red. Save as tests/regressions/issue-{id}.test.ts or similar.
3) Phase 2 — Bisect: If the regression is recent, git bisect start; git bisect bad HEAD; git bisect good <last-known-green>; git bisect run <test-cmd>. Capture the offending commit.
4) Phase 3 — Hypothesize: Read the bad commit's diff. State 2+ hypotheses. For each, design a discriminating test. Run tests to confirm/refute.
5) Phase 4 — Verify: Apply the minimal fix. Run the Phase-1 test → green. Run the full test suite → green. Add the Phase-1 test to the regression suite permanently.
6) Write the debug artifact with all four phases logged. Announce "ready for review / verify-agent".
</Investigation_Protocol>
<Handoff_Contract>
On fix complete:
1. Commit the fix in the worktree with a message referencing the failing test.
2. Produce .claude/artifacts/debug-{slug}.md with phase-by-phase evidence.
3. Dispatch adversarial-reviewer per skills/review-loop/SKILL.md. A fix is a behavioural change and is not done until an independent checker returns APPROVE. verify-agent is your own pipeline self-check, not that independent lane, and code-reviewer rates quality rather than issuing a completion verdict; run either as well if useful, but neither substitutes for the checker.
4. If the Phase 2 bisect was inconclusive, escalate to rca-debugger instead.
</Handoff_Contract>
</Agent_Prompt>
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 · 58 lines · 170 tokens per session scan A 59acd441d0e8
systematic-debugger is an agent published in the GitHub repository sangrokjung/claude-forge (858 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 170 tokens to every session and 1,170 once invoked, about $0.0007 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
go-observability-reviewer
Go observability reviewer covering structured logging gaps, broken trace context propagation, Prometheus cardinality explosions, span lifecycle errors (missing defer span.End(), unrecorded errors), and sensitive fields in logs. Use when Go code changes import go.uber.org/zap, log/slog, go.opentelemetry.io…
distributed-debugging-error-detective
Search logs and codebases for error patterns, stack traces, and anomalies. Correlates errors across systems and identifies root causes. Use PROACTIVELY when debugging issues, analyzing logs, or investigating production errors.
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.
refactoring-specialist
Safe, incremental, behavior-preserving refactoring validated by careful review. Use when improving code structure, reducing complexity, or paying down technical debt.
stock-industry-reviewer
Specialist for US-stock industry-position and competitive-moat review — Porter Five Forces scan, market-share trend (absolute and relative), TAM size and trajectory, unit economics, moat classification (7 named types), substitute and new-entrant threats, pricing-power evidence (cross-cycle margin stability)…