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 skills add bostonaholic/rpikit --skill systematic-debugginggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bostonaholic/rpikitWrote 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/bostonaholic/rpikit/systematic-debugging)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bostonaholic/rpikit/systematic-debugging"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bostonaholic/rpikit/systematic-debugging/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/skills/bostonaholic/rpikit/systematic-debugging"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bostonaholic/rpikit/systematic-debugging.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.01434 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00574 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00287 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00143 |
Grade A, and why
systematic-debugging 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 250 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Systematic Debugging
Find the root cause before attempting fixes. Symptom fixes are failure.
Purpose
Debugging without methodology wastes time and creates new bugs. Random fixes address symptoms, not causes. This skill enforces systematic investigation to find root causes before any fix is attempted.
The Iron Law
ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes.
Quick patches mask underlying issues. If you're trying fixes without understanding why they might work, you're guessing - stop and investigate.
The Four Phases
Complete each phase in order. Do not skip to implementation.
Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation
Understand what's happening before theorizing why.
-
Read the error carefully
- Full error message, not just the first line
- Stack trace - where did it originate?
- Error codes or types
-
Reproduce consistently
- Can you trigger the failure reliably?
- What are the exact steps?
- Does it fail the same way every time?
-
Review recent changes
- What changed since it last worked?
- Check git log for recent commits
- Any new dependencies or configuration?
-
Gather diagnostic evidence
- Add logging at key points
- Check system state (memory, disk, network)
- Inspect input data
-
Trace backwards
- Start from the error
- Work backwards through the call stack
- Find where correct behavior diverges
Phase 2: Pattern Analysis
Compare against working code.
-
Find similar working code
- How does a working version do this?
- What's different about this case?
-
Compare against references
- Documentation examples
- Library/framework conventions
- Previous implementations
-
Identify the difference
- What's unique about the failing case?
- What assumption is being violated?
-
Understand dependencies
- What does this code depend on?
- Could a dependency have changed?
- Are versions correct?
Phase 3: Hypothesis and Testing
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 · 250 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A 8f02e2a7ad28
systematic-debugging is a skill published in the GitHub repository bostonaholic/rpikit (20 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 1,434 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
credit-note-fixer
Fix the tiny credit-note formatting bug and rerun the exact targeted test command.
resolve-handoff
Emit the complete Resolve handoff with exact modes, outcomes, test evidence, and publication state.
resolve-publish
Commit the validated fix and follow local-only, workflow-owned, or direct PR publication.
verify-omnigent
Drive Omnigent the way a user does and prove a behavior with recorded evidence, using an isolated server, runner, and mock model plus a feature map of every user entry point. Load before reproducing a user-facing bug, before claiming a fix works, or when reviewing whether a change covered every surface (session vs.…
resolve-author-fix
Find the root cause, implement a focused fix, and prove behavior with targeted tests and recordings.
resolve-review-pr
Review an existing fix PR using the audited repro and full diff, preserving branch and approval rules.