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 kevinnft/ai-agent-skills --skill systematic-debugginggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/kevinnft/ai-agent-skillsWrote 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/kevinnft/ai-agent-skills/systematic-debugging)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/kevinnft/ai-agent-skills/systematic-debugging"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kevinnft/ai-agent-skills/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/kevinnft/ai-agent-skills/systematic-debugging"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kevinnft/ai-agent-skills/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 | $0.00017 | $0.02651 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.01326 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00530 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00265 |
Grade A, and why
dev-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 9d 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
89% identical to systematic-debugging — 44 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 — 388 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. This skill enforces a 4-phase approach: understand the bug before fixing it.
Common Pitfalls
Bash Installer Scripts
Invalid Commands: Check command exists before using (e.g., hermes config get doesn't exist, use hermes config show or grep config file directly)
Missing Auth Checks: After installing CLI tools (gh, glab), check authentication before using (e.g., gh auth status)
Wrong Installation Paths: When cloning repos with nested structure, copy inner content not outer directory
Hardcoded Values: Detect username/repo dynamically, don't hardcode specific user
Variable Expansion: Use << EOF (no quotes) for variable expansion in heredocs, << 'EOF' to prevent
Error Messages: Include troubleshooting hints (possible causes, manual steps), not just "failed"
The 4-Phase Approach
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)
- Someone 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:
1. 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
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 388 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A 87d30801373b
dev-systematic-debugging is a skill published in the GitHub repository kevinnft/ai-agent-skills (14 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 2,651 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 89% identical to systematic-debugging, differing in 44 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
kubectl-investigator
Investigate a live or recent incident in a Kubernetes cluster. Anchor the window, bisect the change surface (rollouts, ConfigMaps/Secrets, RBAC, HPA/cluster changes, CronJobs), classify against four reference failure paths (OOM, DNS, cascading-failure, deploy-correlator), confirm the hypothesis with three independent…
gdpr-dsgvo-expert-neekware
GDPR and German DSGVO compliance automation. Scans codebases for privacy risks, generates DPIA documentation, tracks data subject rights requests. Use for GDPR compliance assessments, privacy audits, data protection planning, DPIA generation, and data subject rights management.
frontend-bugfix-debugger
Diagnose and fix frontend defects from evidence, including unclear UI/runtime errors, broken routes, styling regressions, and hydration or client issues. Reproduce before editing; exclude planned refactors and backend-only debugging.
plumb-line-remediate
Use when applying findings from a plumb-line audit report — the builder has a report (or pasted findings) and wants the fixes made. Opt-in and separate from the audit, which is read-only and never fixes.
stage-review
Reviews a completed pipeline stage before advancing to the next one. Verifies all declared outputs exist, runs the stage's Review Checkpoint criteria, checks quality against the Process intent, and confirms downstream readiness. Use when: reviewing stage output, checking if ready to advance, verifying stage completion.
validate-pipeline
Validates an ICM pipeline's contract chain — checks that each stage's outputs match the next stage's expected inputs, verifies factory/product separation, and flags structural anti-patterns. Use when: checking pipeline integrity, verifying handoffs, debugging broken stage connections.