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 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/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/duthaho/claudekit/evidence-driven-debugging"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/duthaho/claudekit/evidence-driven-debugging.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 | $0.00087 | $0.02413 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00035 | $0.00965 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $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 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 — 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.
- 1mo 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 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 87 tokens to every session and 2,413 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
eval-hooks
Audit Claude Code and Codex hooks for validity, safety, and correctness across settings.json, hooks.json, config.toml, plugin, and skill or agent frontmatter hooks. Resolves each command, checks event names, handler types, matchers, exit-code and JSON decision strategy, and timeouts against each host's documented…
check-cache-bugs
Audit Claude Code setup for cache bugs (CC#40524): sentinel, --resume/--continue, attribution header + ArkNill B3/B4/B5.
sandbox-unblock
Diagnostic protocol to run before reporting a sandbox blocker or asking for a configuration change. Eleven checks that eliminate false positives, then a report template the person holding the settings can act on. On one measured day, six of eight reported blockers turned out to be false, all from the same handful of…
monitoring-observability
OpenTelemetry, structured logging, distributed tracing, alerting, and dashboards. Use when instrumenting services, designing logs/traces/metrics, defining SLOs and alerts, or debugging production behavior from telemetry.
investigate
Systematic root-cause debugging: find the cause before writing any fix.
qa
Systematic QA testing of a web application: diff-aware, tiered, with fix-and-verify loop.