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/brunob54/superpowers-orchestrator/systematic-debuggingnpx skills add brunob54/superpowers-orchestrator --skill systematic-debugginggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/brunob54/superpowers-orchestratorWrote 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/brunob54/superpowers-orchestrator/systematic-debugging)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/brunob54/superpowers-orchestrator/systematic-debugging"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/brunob54/superpowers-orchestrator/systematic-debugging.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 | $0.00101 | $0.01605 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00051 | $0.00803 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00321 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00161 |
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 4d 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 — 142 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Systematic Debugging
Do root-cause investigation before proposing fixes.
Iron Law
No fix without evidence for root cause.
This is non-negotiable. Every fix must trace back to a proven root cause. A fix applied without understanding why it works is not a fix — it is a mask.
Four Phases
Phase 0: Check Known Issues
- If
known-issues.mdexists at the project root, search it for the error message, error code, or failing test name. - If a match is found, try the documented solution first. If it resolves the issue, stop — no further investigation needed.
- If no match or the documented solution doesn't work, proceed to Phase 1.
Phase 1: Investigate
- Read the full error output — not just the last line.
- Reproduce the bug reliably. If you cannot reproduce, you cannot fix. For tests that fail only in certain orderings (test pollution), run
find-polluter.shfrom this skill's directory to identify which test is corrupting shared state. - Check recent changes — what changed since it last worked?
- If
context-snapshot.jsonexists at the project root: read it. Thechanged_filesandrecent_commitsfields answer this immediately without additional git commands. - Otherwise: run
git log --oneline -10andgit diff HEAD~1..HEAD --name-only.
- If
- Add instrumentation (logging, breakpoints) at component boundaries.
- Multi-component systems: When the system has multiple components (CI → build → signing, API → service → database), add diagnostic logging at EACH component boundary before proposing fixes:
Example (multi-layer system):For EACH component boundary: - Log what data enters the component - Log what data exits the component - Verify environment/config propagation - Check state at each layer Run once to gather evidence showing WHERE it breaks THEN analyze evidence to identify the failing component THEN investigate that specific component
This reveals which layer fails (e.g., secrets → workflow OK, workflow → build FAILS).# Layer 1: Workflow echo "=== Secrets available in workflow: ===" echo "IDENTITY: ${IDENTITY:+SET}${IDENTITY:-UNSET}" # Layer 2: Build script echo "=== Env vars in build script: ===" env | grep IDENTITY || echo "IDENTITY not in environment" # Layer 3: Signing script echo "=== Keychain state: ===" security list-keychains security find-identity -v # Layer 4: Actual signing codesign --sign "$IDENTITY" --verbose=4 "$APP" - Trace data/control flow backward from the error to its source.
What ships with it
5 files 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.
- 4d ago First seen · 142 lines · 101 tokens per session scan A 48965bdc73f1
systematic-debugging is a skill published in the GitHub repository brunob54/superpowers-orchestrator (3 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 101 tokens to every session and 1,605 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
decision-records
Creates, supersedes and validates decision records (ADRs) against the convention a collection already follows, instead of imposing a published one. Use when the user wants to record a decision, write an ADR, supersede an existing decision, audit or lint a decisions folder, check that an ADR index is in sync, or asks…
github-pr-review
Handles PR review comments and feedback resolution. Use when user wants to resolve PR comments, handle review feedback, fix review comments, address PR review, check review status, respond to reviewer, verify PR readiness, review PR comments, analyze review feedback, evaluate PR comments, assess review suggestions, or…
privacy-guard
Prevents private infrastructure details (node hostnames, internal project names, local usernames and personal emails, absolute home paths, private and VPN IP ranges) from leaking into public repositories through commits, PRs, docs or release artifacts. Use when working in a public or soon-to-be-public repo, before…
github-pr-creation
Creates GitHub Pull Requests with automated validation and task tracking. Use when user wants to create PR, open pull request, submit for review, or check if ready for PR. Analyzes commits, validates task completion, generates Conventional Commits title and description, suggests labels. NOTE - for merging existing…
github-pr-merge
Merges GitHub Pull Requests after validating pre-merge checklist. Use when user wants to merge PR, close PR, finalize PR, complete merge, approve and merge, or execute merge. Runs pre-merge validation (tests, lint, CI, comments), confirms with user, merges with proper format, handles post-merge cleanup.
git-commit
Creates git commits following Conventional Commits format with type/scope/subject. Use when user wants to commit changes, create commit, save work, or stage and commit. Enforces project-specific conventions from CLAUDE.md.