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 skills/ardurai/ardur-agent/debug-test-failurenpx skills add ArdurAI/ardur-agent --skill debug-test-failuregit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ArdurAI/ardur-agentWrote 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/skills/ardurai/ardur-agent/debug-test-failure)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ardurai/ardur-agent/debug-test-failure"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ardurai/ardur-agent/debug-test-failure.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00017 | $0.01220 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00610 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00244 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00122 |
Grade A, and why
debug-test-failure 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 119 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Diagnosing a failing test
A failing test is a measurement, not an obstacle. Work the failure as evidence before touching any code. The goal is to know why it fails before you change anything — a fix applied without a diagnosis usually moves the failure rather than removing it.
1. Read the failure, all of it
Start from the raw output, not your memory of what the test does.
- Find the assertion that failed and the exact line it failed on. Frameworks bury this under stack frames; the first frame inside your code is usually the one that matters.
- Record the expected and actual values verbatim. The shape of the
mismatch tells you a lot: off-by-one, wrong type, empty vs populated,
None/nullwhere a value was due, a timestamp or ordering difference. - Note whether it is an assertion failure, an uncaught exception, a timeout, or a panic/crash. These have different root-cause families — a timeout is rarely the same kind of bug as a wrong return value.
- Scan for a second failure. The first error often causes the rest; fix the first and the cascade may clear.
2. Confirm it is the test you think it is
Run the single test in isolation before forming any theory:
# pick the form your runner uses
cargo test path::to::test_name -- --exact --nocapture
pytest tests/test_mod.py::test_name -x -vv
go test ./pkg -run '^TestName$' -v
Two outcomes, two meanings:
- Fails in isolation — the bug is in the unit under test or this test's own setup. Good; you have a clean reproduction.
- Passes in isolation, fails in the suite — this is a test-interaction bug: shared global state, leaked fixtures, ordering dependence, a database or temp file not reset between tests, or a parallel-execution race. Hunt the state that leaks across tests, not the assertion.
3. Isolate the assertion
Narrow the failure to the smallest claim that is false.
- If the assertion compares a large structure, compare fields one at a time until you find the field that differs. Assert on that field alone.
- If it loops, find the first iteration that fails and pin the inputs for that iteration.
- Replace a complex expected value with an inline literal you computed by hand. If your hand-computed value also fails, the bug is in the code; if it passes, the bug was in how the test built its expectation.
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 · 119 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A 703925695982
debug-test-failure is a skill published in the GitHub repository ArdurAI/ardur-agent (2 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 1,220 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
analyze-agent-codebase
当用户希望依据源码、配置、schema 和测试,分析 Coding Agent、Agent 框架或多 Agent 系统的真实架构、执行流程、上下文、记忆、工具、权限或扩展点时使用。继续回答同一分析中的定向机制问题或整理专题文档时也使用。普通代码评审、实现或修复任务,以及不需要仓库证据的概念问答不使用。.
worktree
当用户明确要求使用 Git worktree,或需要为一项独立开发工作创建、查找、复用、交接或清理隔离工作目录时使用。普通只读任务、非 Git 仓库,以及当前工作无需独立分支或工作目录时不使用。.
member-studio
当用户希望创建新的 Rovai 队员,或继续调整、确认本次创建中尚未写入的队员名牌和头像方案时使用。普通成员资料咨询、编辑已创建队员,以及只设计角色或头像但不加入名册的任务不使用。.
campfire
当用户希望 Camp 中多位成员共同讨论、从不同角度分析、比较方案、评估利弊或讨论后形成建议时使用。主持人发起和继续整理讨论,成员在收到本次讨论任务时也使用。普通单人问题、无关发言、迟到补充和已经结束的讨论不使用。.
tasteful-ui
UI design and implementation for real product surfaces with taste-first critique, reference routing, project-specific design briefs, variation comparison, and implementation verification. Use when Codex should redesign, build, polish, or critique frontend UI by reading project context, exploring taste, routing through…
grill-duo-with-docs
当用户希望在 Camp 中通过持续追问和一位固定搭档的独立复核,澄清计划或设计,并同步维护已确认的领域词汇、当前权威文档或版本决策记录时使用。邀请者继续处理用户回答或当前搭档建议,成员收到文档版双人追问复核任务时也使用。普通单人问答、无需维护领域文档的追问、多人讨论、无关发言和已经结束的会话不使用。.