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/SatoruoGojoo/octopusWrote 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/commands/satoruogojoo/octopus/debug)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/satoruogojoo/octopus/debug"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/satoruogojoo/octopus/debug/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/commands/satoruogojoo/octopus/debug"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/satoruogojoo/octopus/debug.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 | $0.00038 | $0.00327 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00131 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00065 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00033 |
Grade A, and why
debug scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
What it actually says
用 Agent 工具啟動 debugger agent，把錯誤資訊原文（含截圖/log）完整轉給它。
- 它若反問（最多 2 問），轉給使用者後把答案轉回（SendMessage 延續同一個 agent）
- 它只分析不修檔；產出根因報告後完整轉述給使用者，保留「確認 vs 推測」的區分，不要擅自把推測講成定論
- 使用者決定修法後，看修法會不會改變預期行為：
- 不會（code 沒做到 spec 本來就寫的事）→ 直接在對話中處理，不進管線
- 會變，或查證後發現該行為從未被寫進主 spec → 走
/octopus:spec開 change（修法本身就是需求），把根因報告全文一併轉入——該 change 的 delta 須把實際炸過的失敗案例編碼成至少一個 Scenario（回歸防護進 spec）
問題：$ARGUMENTS
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 · 15 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A c9f0bde372ef
debug is a command published in the GitHub repository SatoruoGojoo/octopus (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 327 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
deps
(Architect) Analyze module dependencies, detect circular dependencies.
lint:explain
(Ruff) Explain a ruff error and show the PROPER solution (without noqa!).
typecheck:explain
(Typing) Explain type error and show the correct solution (without type: ignore).
typecheck
(Typing) Run mypy/pyright for type checking.
lint
(Ruff) Run ruff check to analyze code for linting errors.
feature:bugfix
Systematic bug investigation and fixing workflow for existing features. Uses code-reviewer for deep analysis, code-consolidator for context, parallel web research for solutions, and atomic phase implementation with review gates.