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/hamr0/liteagents/debug-methodnpx skills add hamr0/liteagents --skill debug-methodgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/hamr0/liteagentsWhat 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 | $0.00042 | $0.02299 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00021 | $0.01149 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00460 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00230 |
Grade A, and why
debug-method 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 2d 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
92% identical to systematic-debugging — 37 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 — 297 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Debug Method
Overview
Random fixes waste time and create new bugs. Quick patches mask underlying issues.
Core principle: ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes. Symptom fixes are failure.
Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of debugging.
The Iron Law
NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST
If you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.
When to Use
Use for ANY technical issue:
- Test failures
- Bugs in production
- Unexpected behavior
- Performance problems
- Build failures
- Integration issues
Use this ESPECIALLY when:
- Under time pressure (emergencies make guessing tempting)
- "Just one quick fix" seems obvious
- You've already tried multiple fixes
- Previous fix didn't work
- You don't fully understand the issue
Don't skip when:
- Issue seems simple (simple bugs have root causes too)
- You're in a hurry (rushing guarantees rework)
- Manager wants it fixed NOW (systematic is faster than thrashing)
The Four Phases
You MUST complete each phase before proceeding to the next.
Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation
BEFORE attempting ANY fix:
-
Read Error Messages Carefully
- Don't skip past errors or warnings
- They often contain the exact solution
- Read stack traces completely
- Note line numbers, file paths, error codes
-
Reproduce Consistently
- Can you trigger it reliably?
- What are the exact steps?
- Does it happen every time?
- If not reproducible → gather more data, don't guess
-
Check Recent Changes
- What changed that could cause this?
- Git diff, recent commits
- New dependencies, config changes
- Environmental differences
-
Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems
WHEN system has multiple components (CI → build → signing, API → service → database):
BEFORE proposing fixes, add diagnostic instrumentation:
For EACH component boundary: - Log what data enters component - Log what data exits component - Verify environment/config propagation - Check state at each layer Run once to gather evidence showing WHERE it breaks THEN analyze evidence to identify failing component THEN investigate that specific component
What ships with it
5 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.
- 2d ago First seen · 297 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A 4580e5035924
debug-method is a skill published in the GitHub repository hamr0/liteagents (22 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 2,299 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 92% identical to systematic-debugging, differing in 37 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
dingtalk_channel_connect
Use a headed browser to automatically complete DingTalk channel integration for QwenPaw. Applicable when the user mentions DingTalk, developer console, Client ID, Client Secret, bot, Stream mode, binding or configuring a channel. Supports pausing when a login page is detected and resuming after the user logs in.
make_plan
For external plan request scenarios, guides the Agent to request a clear, actionable, step-by-step plan from a stronger Agent via listagents and chatwithagent, emphasizing that the plan is executed by the requester, not by the consulted Agent.
当用户需要对PDF文件进行任何操作时，请使用此技能。包括从 PDF 中读取或提取文本/表格、合并多个 PDF、拆分 PDF、旋转页面、添加水印、创建新PDF、填写PDF表单、加密/解密 PDF、提取图片，以及对扫描版 PDF 进行 OCR 使其可搜索。如果用户提到 .pdf 文件或要求生成 PDF，请使用此技能。.
peer-review
Structured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation. Use when writing formal peer reviews with specific criteria methodology assessment, statistical validity, reporting standards compliance (CONSORT/STROBE), and constructive feedback. Best for actual review writing, manuscript revision. For evaluating…
scientific-critical-thinking
Evaluate scientific claims and evidence quality. Use for assessing experimental design validity, identifying biases and confounders, applying evidence grading frameworks (GRADE, Cochrane Risk of Bias), or teaching critical analysis. Best for understanding evidence quality, identifying flaws. For formal peer review…
statistical-power
Sample-size and statistical power calculations for planning studies. Use whenever someone asks "how many subjects/samples/replicates do I need", wants an a priori power analysis, a minimum detectable effect (MDE), a power curve, or needs to justify a sample size for a grant, IRB protocol, or pre-registration. Covers…