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/humanbean17/jrag/systematic-debuggingnpx skills add HumanBean17/jrag --skill systematic-debugginggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/HumanBean17/jragWhat 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 | $0.00021 | $0.02286 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.01143 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00457 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00229 |
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 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
97% identical to systematic-debugging — 15 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.
Systematic Debugging
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
10 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 · 21 tokens per session scan A 3b20719eca4f
systematic-debugging is a skill published in the GitHub repository HumanBean17/jrag (9 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 2,286 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 97% identical to systematic-debugging, differing in 15 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
test
Run /test to write a test suite for code you just built or changed, after implementing a feature, route, or fix. Targets uncommitted changes automatically, reads test preferences.json for your framework (asks and saves it if absent), and picks the right strategy per file: happy path, edge cases, error states…
develop
Run /develop to build a feature, UI or backend, from an approved design, a page, component, API, service, or data slice. If something load bearing is undecided and no spec records it, it stops and routes you to /architect; otherwise it reads the spec plus AGENTS.md, builds, and advances the scope.
sync
Run /sync as the last step after a change is complete, around merge, to keep durable knowledge current. Updates root and nested AGENTS.md, reconciles the scope from repo evidence, and flags specs the change made stale. Surgical edits only: it adds lines, and rewrites single lines it owns. Never a whole section, never…
document
Run /document pr | changelog | release-note | postmortem (or let it ask) to write the human facing prose about a change. Drafts from the real commits and diff, writing to the right place. Does not write code, tests, or specs.
debug
Run /debug to find and fix a bug's root cause: a test failing for an unclear reason, /check verify finding a failure, or behavior being wrong. Runs a reproduce, localize, hypothesize, test, fix, verify loop, makes the minimal fix, and hands a regression test to /test. No features, no extra refactors.
check
Confirm a change before merge. /check verify drives the real app to prove behavior against the spec (every acceptance criterion met, every surface built). /check review runs a senior code review on a fresh model, one that did not write the code. Verify after /develop, review before a PR. Writes to docs/reviews/, never…