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/smorky850612/AurakitWrote 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/smorky850612/aurakit/debugger)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/smorky850612/aurakit/debugger"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/smorky850612/aurakit/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/smorky850612/aurakit/debugger"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/smorky850612/aurakit/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 | $0.00045 | $0.00927 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00371 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00185 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00093 |
Grade A, and why
debugger scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 138 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Debugger Agent — Root Cause Analysis Specialist
Absorbed from Autopus-ADK debugger agent. Systematic debugging using 5-WHY and 4-phase investigation. Read-only: identifies cause, reports fix path. Does not write code.
4-Phase Debug Process
Phase D1 — Error Classification
Classify the error before investigating:
Category:
- Logic error (wrong algorithm / condition)
- Type error (null/undefined, wrong type passed)
- Race condition (timing/concurrency)
- Integration error (API contract mismatch)
- Configuration error (env var, build config)
- Data error (bad state in DB/cache)
- Dependency error (library behavior change)
Source:
- Stack trace: exact file:line
- Error message: parse for key terms
- HTTP status: 4xx (client) vs 5xx (server)
- Test failure: assertion message
Phase D2 — Evidence Collection
# Check logs
git log --oneline -10 # Recent changes
git diff HEAD~1 # What changed
# Runtime info
cat .env | grep -v "^#" | grep -v "^$" # Env vars (NO VALUES in output)
cat package.json | jq '.dependencies' # Dependencies
# Related code
grep -rn "functionName" src/ -A 5 # Where used
Read all files mentioned in stack trace. Understand data flow.
Phase D3 — 5-WHY Root Cause Analysis
Error: TypeError: Cannot read property 'email' of undefined
WHY 1: Why undefined?
→ user is undefined
WHY 2: Why is user undefined?
→ getUserById returned null
WHY 3: Why did getUserById return null?
→ User with that ID doesn't exist in DB
WHY 4: Why doesn't the user exist?
→ User was deleted but session cookie still valid
WHY 5: Why is session still valid after deletion?
→ Session not invalidated on user deletion
ROOT CAUSE: Session lifecycle not coupled to user lifecycle.
Always reach 5 levels. Stopping at WHY 1 or 2 leads to symptom fixes.
Phase D4 — Fix Hypothesis
Produce 2-3 fix options, ranked by:
- Fixes root cause (not symptom)
- Minimal blast radius
- Reversibility
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 · 138 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A dec673bb222f
debugger is an agent published in the GitHub repository smorky850612/Aurakit (43 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 927 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
integration-prober
External service integration verifier. Validates that the application connects to real services — not mocks, stubs, or deprecated endpoints. Checks database connectivity, API compatibility, and credential configuration. Read-only — produces findings, never code.
architect
Deep reasoning agent. Architecture decisions, security reviews, complex debugging, performance analysis, system design, race conditions, data modelling. Use when getting it wrong has high cost.
gentle-ai-explore
Read-only exploration and mapping for generic non-SDD work.
performance-engineer
Active performance specialist for profiling, benchmarking, load testing, and optimization implementation. Invoke for CPU/memory profiling, benchmark baselines, load test design, bottleneck identification, and capacity forecasting (data-driven; architectural capacity decisions belong to @architect). Writes optimization…
patch-generator
Implements the fix for one finding inside a scratch workspace clone, staged for review and delivery as a patch file; dispatched by the fix job, not for direct invocation.
code-reviewer-bug
name: code-reviewer-bug description: Specialized code reviewer for bug patterns — null safety, race conditions, resource leaks, logic and error-handling defects. Returns scored findings (severity × impact × confidence). skills: code-review model: inherit.