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 fmind/dot --skill systematic-debugginggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/fmind/dotWrote 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/fmind/dot/systematic-debugging)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/fmind/dot/systematic-debugging"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fmind/dot/systematic-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/fmind/dot/systematic-debugging"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/fmind/dot/systematic-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 | $0.00026 | $0.00982 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00393 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00196 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00098 |
Grade A, and why
systematic-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 12d 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 — 43 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Systematic Debugging
Replace guess-and-check with an evidence loop that localizes where and why behavior diverges; python-testing implements the fix and incident-response owns live outages.
Workflow
- Preserve evidence: capture the exact error, relevant stack trace, command, inputs, versions, environment differences, timing, and recent changes before touching anything. Keep large sanitized logs in local artifacts; read by incident time, request ID, or error context, retaining the first causal failure and any truncation limits.
- Reproduce, reduce, localize: find the shortest reliable reproduction, minimize it while keeping the same failure, and compare each boundary against the nearest known-good comparator.
- Test one falsifiable hypothesis at a time: state
X causes the failure because Y evidence predicts Z observation, change one variable in a reversible fixture or add narrow instrumentation, and discard failed hypotheses instead of layering fixes. - Name the root cause: Explain the triggering condition, the faulty assumption or invariant, the propagation path, and why existing controls missed it; never blame timing, the environment, or a third party until that path and the missing resilience are understood.
- Fix within the requested scope: when the task includes a fix, reuse that authorization, write a regression test for the broken behavior, implement the smallest root-cause correction, and verify the symptom plus affected checks. Broaden to the full gate when repository policy or the change's risk requires it.
- Report: Return symptom and impact, minimal reproduction, evidence and ruled-out hypotheses, root cause and propagation path, the authorized fix or recommended correction, regression proof, and residual uncertainty with the next probe.
Gotchas
- Diagnosis does not authorize fixes: a request to diagnose authorizes investigation, not implementation; observe read-only, reproduce in an isolated temporary directory, and change product code only when the user also asks for a fix.
- Stop stacking failed fixes: after three failed fix attempts or hypotheses that expose different shared-state failures, stop stacking fixes and reassess the architecture, reproduction, or problem statement. Summarize what the evidence rules out, continue independent safe probes, and ask only when missing information affects scope, correctness, cost, or reversibility.
- Instrument every pipeline boundary once: record presence, shape, identity, status, timestamps, and correlation ids, never secret values; remove the instrumentation unless it has durable value.
What ships with it
3 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.
- 12d ago Changed · -4 lines 1d2a08b2378f
- 14d ago Changed 6e980ba1199a
- 15d ago Changed · -1 lines 8a7fd2f6b31c
- 23d ago Changed f62471eb8c9e
- 29d ago Changed ec2a0e5c678d
- 1mo ago Changed · +1 lines · -16 tokens per session 2a50b2dcfebe
- 1mo ago Changed · +1 lines · +1 tokens per session d3a8dc86defa
- 1mo ago Changed · -4 tokens per session b4549b89f751
- 1mo ago Changed · +4 lines 434214a2b0d2
- 1mo ago First seen · 42 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A a6cd4ee3db9c
systematic-debugging is a skill published in the GitHub repository fmind/dot (12 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 982 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
systematic-debugging
Diagnose unknown-cause bugs, test/build or auth failures, flakes, and runtime performance regressions. Investigate, reduce, localize, falsify hypotheses, and explain root cause before implementation.
dotfiles-bootstrap
Bootstrap a workstation with the dotfiles framework. Takes a GitHub user / owner+repo / explicit clone URL and runs dot init (which shells out to chezmoi) with the right safety prompts. Honors the active agent profile (ask / plan / apply / audit) so it defaults to dry-run in safer modes and full apply in apply.
vibe
Delegate a coding task to a cheap AI model (Mistral Vibe by default, but any provider Vibe knows about — DeepSeek, Gemini Flash, etc.) and supervise the result via git diff. Claude orchestrates, the cheap model codes. Claude consumes 500-1500 tokens per delegation regardless of how many file reads the delegate does…
diagnose-ci
Investigate failing REMOTE CI runs on GitHub Actions: find the failed run, pull the failed-step logs with gh, identify the root cause (compile error, test failure, lint, missing secret, timeout), and recommend a fix. Read-only: it does not commit, push, or edit. Use when CI is red, a GitHub Actions run failed, or the…
taste
Martin's judgement on task-shaped decisions — how to debug, how far to build, what to simplify, what to delete, how to test, what to spend, how to roll out, and how to ask him a question. Load before asking him anything with AskUserQuestion, at any fork where two reasonable approaches diverge, when deciding how much…
gather-context
Build comprehensive understanding of a problem by gathering context from GitHub issues, codebase exploration, git history, and linked references. Use when starting work on an issue or investigating a problem.