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/jtsang4/efficient-coding/systematic-debuggingnpx skills add jtsang4/efficient-coding --skill systematic-debugginggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jtsang4/efficient-codingWhat 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 | $0.02287 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.01144 |
| 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 yesterday.
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
94% identical to systematic-debugging — 17 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.
- yesterday First seen · 297 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A 4999cb851360
systematic-debugging is a skill published in the GitHub repository jtsang4/efficient-coding (2 stars, last pushed 7d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 2,287 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 94% identical to systematic-debugging, differing in 17 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
feishu
Work with Feishu or Lark bots, docs, sheets, bitables, approval flows, and OpenAPI/MCP setup without hardcoding credentials.
interview
Ask one useful structured question at a time only when material product/implementation choices are genuinely missing; remember answers and produce a brief/spec. Discoverable facts should be investigated instead of asked.
writing
将共享历史中的已验证事实和计算结果整理成符合受众、格式与长度约束的成稿。.
test
Detect the project’s test stack, run the narrowest useful tests, create tests when authorized, and report coverage/gaps honestly.
verify
Exercise the real app/API/CLI and collect observable evidence; tests alone do not count as end-to-end verification.
build-teaql-app
Build or change a TeaQL application in Java, Rust, Go, Swift, Python, C#/.NET, or TypeScript, including Kotlin/JVM applications that consume Java-generated libraries. Mandatory order: first draft and save a complete KSML model, then verify the client and evaluate that saved model, repair it through repeated evaluation…