OpenAgents Control is a framework that adds plan-first, approval-based coding workflows to OpenCode, an AI coding framework. Developers and teams use it to make agents follow shared coding patterns, work across several programming languages, and validate changes through testing and review. The catalogue includes its agents, skills, commands, plugin, and hook.
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 darrenhinde/OpenAgentsControl --skill debuggergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/darrenhinde/OpenAgentsControlWrote 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/darrenhinde/openagentscontrol/debugger)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/darrenhinde/openagentscontrol/debugger"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/darrenhinde/openagentscontrol/debugger/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/darrenhinde/openagentscontrol/debugger"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/darrenhinde/openagentscontrol/debugger.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 | $0.00019 | $0.01256 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00502 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00251 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00126 |
Grade A, and why
debugger 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 — 161 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Systematic Debugging
Overview
Random fixes waste time and create new bugs. Quick patches mask underlying issues.
Core principle: ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes. Symptom fixes are failure.
Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of debugging.
The Iron Law
NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST
If you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.
When to Use
Use for ANY technical issue:
- Test failures
- Bugs in production
- Unexpected behavior
- Performance problems
- Build failures
- Integration issues
Use this ESPECIALLY when:
- Under time pressure (emergencies make guessing tempting)
- "Just one quick fix" seems obvious
- You've already tried multiple fixes
- Previous fix didn't work
- You don't fully understand the issue
Don't skip when:
- Issue seems simple (simple bugs have root causes too)
- You're in a hurry (rushing guarantees rework)
The Four Phases
You MUST complete each phase before proceeding to the next.
Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation
BEFORE attempting ANY fix:
-
Read Error Messages Carefully
- Don't skip past errors or warnings
- They often contain the exact solution
- Read stack traces completely
- Note line numbers, file paths, error codes
-
Reproduce Consistently
- Can you trigger it reliably?
- What are the exact steps?
- Does it happen every time?
- If not reproducible → gather more data, don't guess
-
Check Recent Changes
- What changed that could cause this?
- Git diff, recent commits
- New dependencies, config changes
- Environmental differences
-
Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems
WHEN system has multiple components:
BEFORE proposing fixes, add diagnostic instrumentation:
For EACH component boundary: - Log what data enters component - Log what data exits component - Verify environment/config propagation - Check state at each layer Run once to gather evidence showing WHERE it breaks THEN analyze evidence to identify failing component THEN investigate that specific component
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 · 161 lines · 19 tokens per session scan A 86514b447eab
debugger is a skill published in the GitHub repository darrenhinde/OpenAgentsControl (4,955 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 19 tokens to every session and 1,256 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
evidence-audit
Evidence-led audit/fix rounds for any codebase in any language. Finds only defects that a runnable proof reproduces on current code, applies the narrowest in-scope patch, verifies with a second proof, promotes high-risk proofs to permanent regression tests, and reports exact validation results. Use whenever the user…
bug-hunter
Use this skill when scanning source code for bugs, anti-patterns, code smells, or quality issues in a codebase, or when running a proof-driven bug hunt that must find, prove, fix, and verify one real defect. Trigger on the explicit vocabulary — "bug", "bug hunt", "/bughunt", "scan for issues", "find problems"…
debugging
Use this skill when something is broken and the cause is unknown — a failing test, a crash, an error message, wrong output, a regression, a hang, or behaviour that differs between environments — and it has to be found and fixed at the root. Also use it to build the failing proof for a suspected defect before fixing…
observability
Use this skill when adding or reviewing logging, metrics, or tracing in an application, or when a production problem can't be diagnosed from the signals that exist today. Triggers: user says "logging", "logs", "trace", "tracing", "metrics", "observability", "instrument", "OpenTelemetry", "structured logging", "log…
incident-response
Diagnose and recover an owned service incident with bounded changes, timeline evidence and verified health. Use during outages, bad deployments or data/service degradation; preserve evidence and separate mitigation from root-cause repair.
remote-debugging
Diagnose a reported application failure on explicitly authorized remote hosts using bounded logs and runtime evidence. Use when local behavior differs from a known server or deployment; start read-only and keep diagnosis separate from disruptive remediation.