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/duthaho/claudekit/evidence-driven-debuggingnpx skills add duthaho/claudekit --skill evidence-driven-debugginggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/duthaho/claudekitWrote 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/duthaho/claudekit/evidence-driven-debugging)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/duthaho/claudekit/evidence-driven-debugging"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/duthaho/claudekit/evidence-driven-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 | $0.00087 | $0.02413 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00044 | $0.01207 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00483 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00241 |
Grade A, and why
evidence-driven-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 — 184 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Evidence-Driven Debugging
Overview
The active-debugging companion to investigate-root-cause. Where investigate
produces a written hypothesis, evidence-driven-debugging is the workflow for
testing that hypothesis with real instrumentation: logs, breakpoints, prints,
debugger sessions, runtime probes. The skill exists because the most common
debugging-phase failure is the engineer who runs through three or four mental
hypotheses without writing anything down, ends up where they started, and can't
reconstruct what they tried. Evidence-driven debugging keeps a paper trail.
Used inside Phase 3 of investigate-root-cause, but invocable directly when an
existing hypothesis just needs runtime testing.
When to Use
- You have a hypothesis from
investigate-root-causeand need to test it - You're debugging in a system that's hard to step through (async, distributed, multi-process)
- You've added logs/prints to test a theory and need to organize what you learn
- A bug only reproduces in a deployed environment, not locally
- You're about to do "let me just add some console.logs" — pause and use this skill to keep them organized
When NOT to Use
- You don't have a hypothesis yet — go to
investigate-root-causePhase 2 first - The bug is in code you can step through with a debugger and the path is short
- The fix is one line and obvious from reading; debugging instrumentation is overkill
Process
Step 1: State the hypothesis to test
Goal: Be explicit about what runtime evidence will confirm or refute.
Inputs: A hypothesis (from investigate-root-cause Phase 2 or your own
prior thinking).
Actions:
- Write the hypothesis as one sentence:
The bug occurs because [X] causes [Y] when [Z]. - Decide what runtime evidence would confirm it: a value at a specific line, a sequence of events, an absence of an expected log line.
- Decide what would refute it: the value isn't what you predicted, the sequence is different, the expected event happens but the bug still occurs.
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 · 184 lines · 87 tokens per session scan A adb9e10e821b
evidence-driven-debugging is a skill published in the GitHub repository duthaho/claudekit (97 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 87 tokens to every session and 2,413 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
writing-workflow-skills
Use when adding a new workflow skill to pi-thinkrail-workflow, changing an existing workflow skill's role, trigger, handoff, or structure, or checking a workflow skill against the workflow system's rules. Not for authoring general-purpose skills outside this package.
writing-specs
Use when a workflow step drafts or revises a spec artifact — a goal-and-requirements, an architecture, or a module SPEC — or when a workflow skill names it at such a step. The shared quality bar for specs — not a workflow, nothing to execute.
self-assessment
Interactive skill assessment with personalized learning path generation.
source-command-methodology-advisor
Analyzes your codebase and asks 3 targeted questions to recommend the right AI-assisted development methodology stack.
containing-active-breach
Executes containment strategies to stop active adversary operations and prevent lateral movement during a confirmed security breach. Implements short-term and long-term containment using network segmentation, endpoint isolation, credential revocation, and access control modifications. Activates for requests involving…
api-integration-test
Create, maintain, and run gated Go integration tests for internal APIs and service-to-service clients (HTTP/gRPC). Use for endpoint verification, contract checks with real runtime config, opt-in execution, timeout/retry safety, and integration failure triage in Go services.