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 danielvm-git/bigpowers --skill investigate-buggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/danielvm-git/bigpowersWrote 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/danielvm-git/bigpowers/investigate-bug)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/danielvm-git/bigpowers/investigate-bug"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/danielvm-git/bigpowers/investigate-bug/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/danielvm-git/bigpowers/investigate-bug"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/danielvm-git/bigpowers/investigate-bug.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 3 Skill selects an external model or provider that may use a different account or billing plan than the operator expects. Undisclosed model switches can cause unexpected cost or quota consumption.Fix: Remove the model/provider override or disclose it prominently and require explicit operator approval before invoking an external coding CLI or billed model.
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 | $0.00064 | $0.01252 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.00501 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00250 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00125 |
Grade A, and why
investigate-bug 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 — 128 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Investigate Bug
Boundary: End-to-end bug entry point — history check → RCA (via diagnose-root) → fix approach → TDD plan → bug file. Delegates the 4-phase RCA to diagnose-root; does not re-implement it.
Investigate a reported problem, find its root cause, and write a TDD fix plan to specs/bugs/BUG-*.md. This is a mostly hands-off workflow — minimize questions to the user.
Process
0. Read previous bug history
Before starting diagnosis:
- Read
specs/bugs/registry.yaml(if it exists) — check for prior bugs in the samescopeor with similar symptoms. - If a relevant prior bug is found, read the corresponding
specs/bugs/BUG-*.mdfile to understand previous root cause analysis and fix approach. - Note in your investigation whether this is a recurrence, a related issue, or novel.
1. Capture the problem
Get a brief description of the issue from the user. If they haven't provided one, ask ONE question: "What's the problem you're seeing?"
Do NOT ask follow-up questions yet. Start investigating immediately.
Security-impact assessment — After capturing the problem, assess and document:
Security impact: NONE / LOW / MEDIUM / HIGH / CRITICAL. If HIGH or CRITICAL, assign bug severity HIGH and document the exploit path in findings. If MEDIUM+, include exploit path in the bug file. Document "no security exploit path identified" for NONE/LOW.
2. Explore and diagnose (4-phase RCA)
Run the 4-phase root-cause analysis via the diagnose-root skill (Reproduce → Isolate → Hypothesize → Verify). That skill is the canonical RCA engine — do not re-implement the phases here.
Also look at:
- Recent changes to affected files (
git log --oneline <file>) - Existing tests (what's tested, what's missing)
- Similar patterns elsewhere in the codebase that work correctly
HARD GATE — Do NOT proceed to Step 3 (Fix Approach) until
diagnose-rootPhase 4 produces a verified root cause. "It probably is X" is not verified.
3. Identify the fix approach
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 · 128 lines · 64 tokens per session scan A 5354cd9022a8
investigate-bug is a skill published in the GitHub repository danielvm-git/bigpowers (268 stars, last pushed 28d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 64 tokens to every session and 1,252 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
tdd
This skill should be used when the user asks to "add a feature using TDD", "fix a bug with TDD", "do TDD", "red-green-refactor", "write a failing test first", "use test-driven development", "start TDD", "test first approach", "TDD loop", "TDD cycle", or mentions TDD workflow, baby steps, guessing game, or…
systematic-debugging
4-phase root cause debugging: understand bugs before fixing.
build-test
Run the project's build / typecheck / lint / test commands and emit the build.passing + tests.passing signals devloop convergence reads.
workflow-patterns
Use this skill when implementing tasks according to Conductor's TDD workflow, handling phase checkpoints, managing git commits for tasks, or understanding the verification protocol.
resolve-author-fix
Find the root cause, implement a focused fix, and prove behavior with targeted tests and recordings.
nw-bugfix
Bug fix workflow: root cause analysis → user review → regression test + fix via TDD.