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/rtazima/claude-proj-blueprint/debuggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/rtazima/claude-proj-blueprintWhat 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 | $0.00000 | $0.00177 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00088 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00035 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00018 |
Grade A, and why
debug 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 2d 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
Systematic debugging: reproduce, isolate, hypothesize, fix, verify, document.
Arguments: $ARGUMENTS (error message, file path, or description of the problem)
Workflow:
- Activate the
debuggerskill - Understand the problem from $ARGUMENTS
- Phase 1 — Reproduce: confirm the bug, get the exact error
- Phase 2 — Isolate: check recent git changes, narrow scope
- Phase 3 — Hypothesize: form 2+ possible causes with evidence
- Phase 4 — Fix: apply minimal fix for the most likely cause
- Phase 5 — Verify: run the failing test + full suite
- Phase 6 — Document: post-mortem (production) or Gotcha (recurring trap)
Never guess. Always gather evidence first.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 16 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A da8eb7df8994
debug is a command published in the GitHub repository rtazima/claude-proj-blueprint (20 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 177 tokens. 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
sruja-reflect-on-run
Use this after an sruja agent loop, sruja agent apply, or sruja agent run --mode apply completes. This command guides your editor agent to distill lessons into agent memory.
spec-retro
Run a retrospective on a completed spec to capture lessons learned.
spec-complete
Run full post-completion pipeline (accept, docs, release, retro).
review
Cold re-quiz on code that already shipped — your own session commits, not the change in front of you.
no-vibe
Enter no-vibe mode in OpenCode (tutor mode, no direct project file writes).
teach-me-testing
Teach testing progressively through structured sessions. Use when user says ""lets learn testing"" or ""I want to study test practices"".