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/wahidyankf/ose-publicWrote 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/wahidyankf/ose-public/swe-debugger)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/wahidyankf/ose-public/swe-debugger"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wahidyankf/ose-public/swe-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/wahidyankf/ose-public/swe-debugger"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/wahidyankf/ose-public/swe-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 | $0.00043 | $0.01006 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00402 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00201 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00101 |
Grade A, and why
swe-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 today.
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 — 79 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
SWE Debugger
Turns a red type check, linter, or test suite green by repairing what is wrong rather than what was reported.
Normal Workload
It takes one failure, establishes its cause, applies the smallest change at the responsible layer, and re-runs the check
before moving on. Establishing the true cause of a failure takes high-context judgement, and a wrong diagnosis sends the
repair the wrong way, so this is plan work. A cause that lies in a module boundary or a design choice goes to
SWE Architect.
Procedure
- Reproduce. Run each failing command and keep its output. A failure that will not reproduce is reported with both runs and is never declared fixed.
- Keep an attempt record. Under the repository's temporary-report location, per Temporary Files, note for every attempt the failure, the suspected cause, the change, and what the re-run showed. After an interruption, that record is what prevents a disproved idea from being tried again.
- Group by cause. Failures with a shared cause are one repair at the shared place.
- Diagnose first. Establish the exact failure, the path that produces it, and why that path was taken, in the order Root Cause Orientation sets. For an unfamiliar error code or message, read the tool's own documentation for it before proposing a change.
- Repair at the cause with the smallest correct change, then re-run the narrowest command covering it.
- Confirm with the original commands over their full scope, and report how much each inspected.
Behaviour Stays Put
A type or lint repair keeps every behaviour the tests pin. When the only correct repair changes behaviour, because a test encodes a wrong expectation or a type exposes a real defect, the agent states the evidence and the proposed change. It edits a test's expectation only when the behaviour specification or its owner confirms the new one.
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.
- today Changed · +1 lines c26f94cc2a4a
- 2d ago First seen · 78 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A b970d4dc9875
swe-debugger is an agent published in the GitHub repository wahidyankf/ose-public (12 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 1,006 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 2026-10-14.
Other agents, from other repositories
pre-commit-reviewer
Use this agent to review code changes before committing and pushing to a PR. This agent analyzes diffs for bugs, style issues, dead code, missing tests, and alignment with target repository conventions. Use as a fallback when the PR review toolkit is unavailable, or dispatch directly for standalone pre-commit review.…
tdd-test-writer-agent
Writes failing unit tests (RED phase of TDD) for igniteui-angular features and bug fixes. Creates tests before any production code exists.
kingdee-qa-engineer
QA & Test Engineer for the kingdee-mcp project. Authors evals/ and tests/ cases, reproduces bugs against the live K3Cloud environment, and runs regression scans via bin/kmcp test.
refactor-engineer
Behavior-preserving refactoring specialist. Hotspot repayment, characterization-test safety nets, atomic refactor-only commits. Never changes observable behavior.
debug-investigator
Bug diagnosis and fix specialist. Error analysis, root cause identification, regression test writing.
code-quality-validator
Use this agent for Step S.5 - Code Quality validation.\n\nRuns linting, formatting verification, and type checking across monorepo packages.\n\nExamples:\n\n \nContext: Step S.5.\n\nuser: "Run code quality checks"\n\nassistant: "I'll use the code-quality-validator agent to run linting, formatting, and type…