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 Ertinox7711/SGRR-AGI-V2 --skill gstack-openclaw-investigategit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Ertinox7711/SGRR-AGI-V2Wrote 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/ertinox7711/sgrr-agi-v2/gstack-openclaw-investigate)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ertinox7711/sgrr-agi-v2/gstack-openclaw-investigate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ertinox7711/sgrr-agi-v2/gstack-openclaw-investigate/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/ertinox7711/sgrr-agi-v2/gstack-openclaw-investigate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ertinox7711/sgrr-agi-v2/gstack-openclaw-investigate.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 | $0.00046 | $0.01226 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00613 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00245 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00123 |
Grade A, and why
gstack-openclaw-investigate 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 3d 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to gstack-openclaw-investigate — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 135 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Systematic Debugging
Iron Law
NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST.
Fixing symptoms creates whack-a-mole debugging. Every fix that doesn't address root cause makes the next bug harder to find. Find the root cause, then fix it.
Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation
Gather context before forming any hypothesis.
-
Collect symptoms: Read the error messages, stack traces, and reproduction steps. If the user hasn't provided enough context, ask ONE question at a time. Don't ask five questions at once.
-
Read the code: Trace the code path from the symptom back to potential causes. Search for all references, read the logic around the failure point.
-
Check recent changes:
git log --oneline -20 -- <affected-files>Was this working before? What changed? A regression means the root cause is in the diff.
-
Reproduce: Can you trigger the bug deterministically? If not, gather more evidence before proceeding.
-
Check memory for prior debugging sessions on the same area. Recurring bugs in the same files are an architectural smell.
Output: "Root cause hypothesis: ..." ... a specific, testable claim about what is wrong and why.
Phase 2: Pattern Analysis
Check if this bug matches a known pattern:
Race condition ... Intermittent, timing-dependent. Look at concurrent access to shared state.
Nil/null propagation ... NoMethodError, TypeError. Missing guards on optional values.
State corruption ... Inconsistent data, partial updates. Check transactions, callbacks, hooks.
Integration failure ... Timeout, unexpected response. External API calls, service boundaries.
Configuration drift ... Works locally, fails in staging/prod. Env vars, feature flags, DB state.
Stale cache ... Shows old data, fixes on cache clear. Redis, CDN, browser cache.
Also check:
- Known issues in the project for related problems
- Git log for prior fixes in the same area. Recurring bugs in the same files are an architectural smell, not a coincidence.
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 135 lines · 46 tokens per session scan A ab4ef9f9482a
gstack-openclaw-investigate is a skill published in the GitHub repository Ertinox7711/SGRR-AGI-V2 (1 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 46 tokens to every session and 1,226 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to gstack-openclaw-investigate, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
manage-skills
A maintenance workflow for checking whether project verification skills still cover the code and rules that changed during a session.
systematic-debugging
Structured debugging methodology — use before proposing fixes for any error or failure. Covers: code bugs, build errors, deploy failures, config conflicts, dependency issues, infra problems. Also use when previous fix attempts failed or root cause is unclear.
review-loop
Run the adversarial verification loop — implement, then hand the change to a fresh checker that did not write it, fix what it finds, and re-dispatch until APPROVE. Use before claiming any behavioural change is done, and on requests like "review loop", "adversarial review", "independent review", "get this verified"…
docs-release-notes
Use when a change needs a user-visible release-note, changelog, or changeset entry — "add a release note", "add a changeset for this", "what goes in the changelog?", "write up what shipped", "note this for the next release" — or when finalizing a branch whose customer-visible features, bug fixes, or UI changes should…
retrospective-audit
Stage B of /prflow:retrospective-weekly: given a most-recent-first subset of one recurring pattern's occurrence-PR context bundles (bounded by auditbundlecap), re-derive the root cause and return one JSON object carrying a ranked findings array (one to three sub-patterns) — no edits, no worktree. Invoked as a subagent…
taiyi-health
A codebase health review process that samples recently changed production modules and test files, then checks for issues such as duplication, unused code, and unused dependencies.