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 laurigates/claude-plugins --skill debugging-methodologygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/laurigates/claude-pluginsWrote 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/laurigates/claude-plugins/debugging-methodology)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/laurigates/claude-plugins/debugging-methodology"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/laurigates/claude-plugins/debugging-methodology/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/laurigates/claude-plugins/debugging-methodology"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/laurigates/claude-plugins/debugging-methodology.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 9 findings, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Excessive Agency · line 6 Skill selects an external model or provider that may use a different account or billing plan than the operator expects. Undisclosed model switches can cause unexpected cost or quota consumption.Fix: Remove the model/provider override or disclose it prominently and require explicit operator approval before invoking an external coding CLI or billed model.
- medium Privilege Escalation · line 103 Commands invoke sudo or root privileges. Verify this elevated access is necessary and justified.Fix: Avoid sudo/root unless strictly required. Prefer least-privilege patterns. If elevation is needed, document the justification and scope.
- medium Privilege Escalation · line 115 Commands invoke sudo or root privileges. Verify this elevated access is necessary and justified.Fix: Avoid sudo/root unless strictly required. Prefer least-privilege patterns. If elevation is needed, document the justification and scope.
- medium Privilege Escalation · line 104 Commands invoke sudo or root privileges. Verify this elevated access is necessary and justified.Fix: Avoid sudo/root unless strictly required. Prefer least-privilege patterns. If elevation is needed, document the justification and scope.
- medium Privilege Escalation · line 105 Commands invoke sudo or root privileges. Verify this elevated access is necessary and justified.Fix: Avoid sudo/root unless strictly required. Prefer least-privilege patterns. If elevation is needed, document the justification and scope.
- medium Privilege Escalation · line 106 Commands invoke sudo or root privileges. Verify this elevated access is necessary and justified.Fix: Avoid sudo/root unless strictly required. Prefer least-privilege patterns. If elevation is needed, document the justification and scope.
- medium Privilege Escalation · line 107 Commands invoke sudo or root privileges. Verify this elevated access is necessary and justified.Fix: Avoid sudo/root unless strictly required. Prefer least-privilege patterns. If elevation is needed, document the justification and scope.
- medium Privilege Escalation · line 111 Commands invoke sudo or root privileges. Verify this elevated access is necessary and justified.Fix: Avoid sudo/root unless strictly required. Prefer least-privilege patterns. If elevation is needed, document the justification and scope.
- medium Privilege Escalation · line 112 Commands invoke sudo or root privileges. Verify this elevated access is necessary and justified.Fix: Avoid sudo/root unless strictly required. Prefer least-privilege patterns. If elevation is needed, document the justification and scope.
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 | $0.00041 | $0.01686 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00674 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00337 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00169 |
Grade A, and why
debugging-methodology 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 1mo 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 — 138 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Debugging Methodology
Systematic approach to finding and fixing bugs.
When to Use This Skill
| Use this skill when... | Use something else instead when... |
|---|---|
| Diagnosing a live bug, memory leak, race, or perf regression | Bug is hidden by a swallowed error → code-hidden-failures --track errors |
| Reasoning about reproduction, isolation, and root cause | Bug is hidden by silent success-on-empty → code-hidden-failures --track degradation |
| Choosing strace/eBPF/perf for system-level investigation | Reviewing surrounding code quality once root cause is known → code-review |
| Documenting hypotheses and binary-searching the failure | Refactoring the buggy module after the fix → code-refactor |
Core Principles
- Occam's Razor - Start with the simplest explanation
- Binary Search - Isolate the problem area systematically
- Preserve Evidence - Understand state before making changes
- Document Hypotheses - Track what was tried and didn't work
Debugging Workflow
1. Understand → What is expected vs actual behavior?
2. Reproduce → Can you trigger the bug reliably?
3. Locate → Where in the code does it happen?
4. Diagnose → Why does it happen? (root cause)
5. Fix → Minimal change to resolve
6. Verify → Confirm fix works, no regressions
Common Bug Patterns
| Symptom | Likely Cause | Check First |
|---|---|---|
| TypeError/null | Missing null check | Input validation |
| Off-by-one | Loop bounds, array index | Boundary conditions |
| Race condition | Async timing | Await/promise handling |
| Import error | Path/module resolution | File paths, exports |
| Type mismatch | Wrong type passed | Function signatures |
| Flaky test | Timing, shared state | Test isolation |
Diagnose at the Failure Point — Sentinel Values and the Resource Reading
Promoted from ~/.claude/rules/diagnose-at-the-failure-point.md, whose stub
keeps the two gate lines. When a tool or library reports a failure, two surface
features routinely misdirect the diagnosis: the named entity in the error,
and the framing you inherited going in. Both are cheap to check against
reality at the exact point of failure.
What ships with it
1 file 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.
- 1mo ago Changed · -51 lines scan B → A 72995e4a3a77
- 1mo ago First seen · 189 lines · 41 tokens per session scan B e8ce270ca50c
debugging-methodology is a skill published in the GitHub repository laurigates/claude-plugins (59 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 1,686 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
verify-before-done
Before claiming work is fixed, done, passing or deployed.
audit-dead-code
Read-only hunt for dead and unused code across four labeled lanes (Knip for TS/JS, vulture for Python, gopls for Go, grep for shell and files no lane owns), each candidate adjudicated dead, uncertain or alive. Use when asked to 'find dead code', to find what is unused in a repository (exports, functions, orphaned…
godot
Godot 4 work in a project with project.godot, .gd or .tscn files. Use to verify a change in the running game, fix a headless GDScript test run that hangs or exits 0, hand-edit a .tscn, commit .uid files, or catch an invented API.
performance
Profiling-driven performance optimization: caching, query tuning, N+1 fixes, memory, and load testing. Use to diagnose a bottleneck or set performance budgets.
devils-advocate
Stress-test plans and proposals via systematic adversarial review. Assumption extraction, evidence check, failure scenarios, operational gotchas. Before implementation begins. Use when: asked to attack a plan or proposal ('devil's advocate', 'stress test', 'poke holes', 'what could go wrong'), or before implementation…
ci-log-interpretation
Use this skill when reading or analyzing CI logs from a Shopware GitHub Actions workflow to figure out why a build failed — phrases like "why did CI fail", "what broke the build", "check the pipeline", "interpret these logs", "debug this red build" — or whenever raw run logs, job logs, or check annotations from a…