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 dayfinggg/openai-codex-agent-skills --skill debugginggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/dayfinggg/openai-codex-agent-skillsWrote 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/dayfinggg/openai-codex-agent-skills/debugging)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/dayfinggg/openai-codex-agent-skills/debugging"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dayfinggg/openai-codex-agent-skills/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/dayfinggg/openai-codex-agent-skills/debugging"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dayfinggg/openai-codex-agent-skills/debugging.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 5.1 | $0.00087 | $0.01282 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00035 | $0.00513 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00256 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00128 |
Grade A, and why
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 yesterday.
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 — 38 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
-
Establish the expected and observed behavior, affected operation, environment, revision, runtime and dependency versions, inputs, and relevant time interval. Read applicable project instructions, the affected callers and contracts, and relevant glossary entries or architecture decisions. An investigation request does not authorize a fix or deployment. Keep live investigation read-only until a specific correction is supported and authorized.
-
Select only the relevant reference. Each contains a read when condition.
- Incidents, read when diagnosing an outage, elevated errors, or production latency.
- CI failures, read when a pipeline fails, flakes, or differs from local execution.
- Database queries, read when SQL, locks, or connection exhaustion dominate the symptom.
- PHP-FPM and OPcache, read when FastCGI fails, workers saturate, or PHP serves stale code.
- Symfony, read when a request, profiler token, service binding, or environment loading points to Symfony.
- Runtime debugging, read when Node.js or Python state, timing, or stack inspection can distinguish causes.
-
Before changing behavior, run a bounded reproduction that asserts the user's exact symptom. Prefer an existing failing test, then an HTTP or CLI invocation, UI assertion, trace replay, or isolated harness. Preserve the invocation, relevant output, exit status, environment, and revision. Reading code to construct the reproduction is allowed. A setup failure or successful health check is not reproduction of the reported defect.
-
Minimize the failing scenario by removing one input, caller, configuration difference, or dependency at a time and rerunning it. Keep the actual call chain and concurrency required for failure. Pin clocks, seeds, data, and dependencies where relevant. For intermittent bugs, measure failures per attempts under bounded stress and preserve the schedule or seed. Do not prescribe arbitrary retry counts or treat one clean run as proof. For performance, capture a representative baseline with equivalent data, concurrency, and cache state before tuning.
-
If no reproduction is possible, record attempts and the missing access, artifact, or instrumentation. Continue independent read-only investigation. Ask only for the missing prerequisite. A human-only reproduction needs exact steps, timestamps, and redacted observations through an available user interaction channel, never a shell waiting for input. Do not claim regression proof from inspection alone.
-
Gather the smallest evidence set that separates causes. Correlate exact log lines, metrics with units and populations, trace spans with request identity, and relevant code, configuration, dependency, or deployment changes. Extract the supporting lines with timestamps and source locations before drawing conclusions from a long log. Follow surrounding context and rotated history when needed. A summary, truncated result, missing sample, or plausible narrative is not a measured cause. Redact secrets before displaying or saving commands and artifacts, including headers and payloads. Do not reconstruct masked values.
-
Locate the first broken contract in the actual path. Trace the bad value, exception, or wait backward through callers and component boundaries, comparing with a working equivalent. Distinguish the originating defect from downstream symptoms. A database wait does not justify an HTTP timeout increase, and a tool-runtime failure does not establish an application defect. Repair the responsible layer without changing unrelated access rules, supported events, or interfaces.
-
When the cause is uncertain, keep competing falsifiable hypotheses. For each, identify supporting evidence, counterevidence, a predicted observation, and a disconfirming result. Select the cheapest bounded experiment whose possible outcomes distinguish the leading explanations. Change one variable at a time. Prefer a breakpoint or targeted boundary probe over broad logging. Mark temporary instrumentation with a unique searchable identifier. Revisit the candidates after a failed experiment instead of stacking speculative fixes. Use a known-good comparison or authorized bisection when change history provides the distinguishing experiment.
What ships with it
6 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.
- yesterday First seen · 38 lines · 87 tokens per session scan A a4767aada1e0
debugging is a skill published in the GitHub repository dayfinggg/openai-codex-agent-skills (8 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 87 tokens to every session and 1,282 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 2026-11-06.
debugging compared with skills from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| debuggingdayfinggg/openai-codex-agent-skills | Skill | 8 | yesterday | MIT | A | 87 | Claude Code, Codex |
| dustoffjoshukraine/dotfiles | Skill | 429 | 10d ago | MIT | A | 64 | Claude Code |
| gui-debugnatsukium/dotfiles | Skill | 106 | yesterday | CC0-1.0 | A | 113 | Claude Code, Codex |
| fixdarkroomengineering/cc-settings | Skill | 52 | yesterday | MIT | A | 52 | Claude Code |
| systematic-debugginghuangwb8/skills | Skill | 50 | 6d ago | MIT | A | 43 | Claude Code, Codex |
| refactordarkroomengineering/cc-settings | Skill | 52 | yesterday | MIT | A | 58 | Claude Code |
| bensz-collect-bugshuangwb8/skills | Skill | 50 | 6d ago | MIT | A | 68 | Claude Code, Codex |