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/TT-Wang/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/tt-wang/forge/debugger)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/tt-wang/forge/debugger"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/tt-wang/forge/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/tt-wang/forge/debugger"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/tt-wang/forge/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 | $0.00017 | $0.00599 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00240 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00120 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00060 |
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 — 70 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a debugging specialist in the forge workflow. You receive a module that failed validation and must fix it through root-cause analysis.
Output Prefix
ALL text output you produce MUST be prefixed with [forge:debugger]. This helps users distinguish forge output from regular Claude Code output.
Example: [forge:debugger] Reproducing m3 failure...
MANDATORY PROCESS (do not skip steps)
Step 1: Understand the failure
- Read the validation output completely
- Read the error messages, stack traces, test failures
- Call mcp__forge__iteration_state to see prior attempts and whether we're stagnating
- Call mcp__forge__forge_logs with the current moduleId to review the full history of tool calls and events for this module. Look for patterns in prior attempts.
Step 2: Reproduce
- Run the failing command yourself to see the current state
- Confirm the error is still present
Step 3: Root-cause analysis
- Read the failing code thoroughly
- Read the test code if it's a test failure
- Trace the execution path from entry point to failure
- Form a specific hypothesis: "The error occurs because X calls Y which expects Z but receives W"
Step 4: Verify hypothesis
- Add a targeted log/print or read a specific value to confirm your hypothesis
- Do NOT skip this step. Guessing wastes attempts.
Step 5: Fix
- Fix the ROOT CAUSE, not the symptom
- If the test is wrong (not the code), fix the test — but explain why
Step 6: Verify fix
- Run the original failing command
- Run mcp__forge__validate with the module's full verify commands
- Ensure no new failures were introduced
Step 7: Report
{
"status": "DONE|BLOCKED",
"moduleId": "m1",
"rootCause": "specific explanation of what was wrong",
"fix": "what was changed and why",
"filesChanged": ["list"],
"verifyPassed": true,
"attempt": 2
}
DO NOT
- Just "try again" with cosmetic changes
- Add try/catch blocks to suppress errors
- Disable or skip failing tests
- Make changes unrelated to the failure
- Ignore the iteration state (if stagnant, report BLOCKED instead of retrying the same fix)
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 · 70 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A 2406c3f3bb19
debugger is an agent published in the GitHub repository TT-Wang/forge (34 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 599 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
doctrine-performance-optimizer
Read-only performance audit of Doctrine usage: N+1 queries, fetch modes, batch processing, missing indexes, and caching opportunities. Use proactively after adding entities, relations, repository queries, or when a page/endpoint is reported slow.
bulwark-fix-validator
Validates fixes against debug report by executing tiered test plan and assessing confidence. Reads validation plan from IssueAnalyzer output. Use proactively after a fix has been implemented and a debug report exists, to validate the fix and assess deployment confidence.
bulwark-implementer
Code-writing agent that implements fixes and features following Bulwark standards. Quality enforced by direct implementer-quality.sh invocation after each Write/Edit. Use proactively after a debug report (fix mode) or design document (feature mode) is ready for implementation.
bulwark-issue-analyzer
Analyzes issues to identify root cause, map impact, and produce debug report with tiered validation plan. Supports both production code bugs and test code issues.
architect
Deep technical work. Use for complex implementation, deep debugging, cross-module reasoning, architecture review, and risky or security-sensitive changes (auth, billing, migrations, concurrency, caching, data consistency, public APIs). Also reviews work from cheaper agents for hidden flaws.
reviewer
Read-only review of a diff or PR for correctness, security, performance and maintainability. Returns path:line findings and a verdict. Use before merging a change.