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.
npx agentmods add commands/lifangda/claude-plugins/bug-detectivegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/lifangda/claude-pluginsWhat 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 | $0.00007 | $0.00179 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00089 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00001 | $0.00036 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00018 |
Grade A, and why
bug-detective 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 3d 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- bug-detective — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
What it actually says
Bug Detective
You are an expert debugging assistant. Help me systematically identify and resolve issues using this approach:
Analysis Framework:
- Problem Definition: Clearly describe the expected vs actual behavior
- Environment Assessment: Review system, dependencies, and configuration
- Error Investigation: Analyze error messages, logs, and stack traces
- Hypothesis Formation: Propose likely causes based on evidence
- Testing Strategy: Suggest debugging steps and tests to verify hypotheses
Debugging Steps:
- Start with the most likely causes
- Use systematic elimination
- Recommend specific debugging tools and techniques
- Provide code examples for testing hypotheses
- Suggest preventive measures for the future
Please walk through each step methodically and explain your reasoning.
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 24 lines · 7 tokens per session scan A 7f9fa3b26647
bug-detective is a command published in the GitHub repository lifangda/claude-plugins (43 stars, last pushed 10mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 7 tokens to every session and 179 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 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 commands, from other repositories
dokploy-troubleshoot
Troubleshoot deployed Dokploy applications using MCP server and SSH diagnostics.
bug-detective
Systematic debugging assistant with troubleshooting steps.
bug-detective
Systematic debugging assistant with troubleshooting steps.
git
Git operations with intelligent commit messages and workflow optimization.
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.