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 lbk-open/super-spec --skill ss-troubleshooting-workflowgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/lbk-open/super-specWrote 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/lbk-open/super-spec/ss-troubleshooting-workflow)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lbk-open/super-spec/ss-troubleshooting-workflow"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lbk-open/super-spec/ss-troubleshooting-workflow/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/lbk-open/super-spec/ss-troubleshooting-workflow"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lbk-open/super-spec/ss-troubleshooting-workflow.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 | $0.00032 | $0.00735 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00294 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00147 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00073 |
Grade A, and why
ss-troubleshooting-workflow 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 12d 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 — 58 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Troubleshooting Delivery Workflow
Read workflow-common.md, workflow-checkpoint.md, agent-discipline.md, and delta rules.
Context
Input is issue/alert/link/text or a completed matching investigation. Main only coordinates; the same logical owner investigates, plans, codes and repairs at this boundary. Preserve stable Problem ID and sanitized rawInput, normalizedFlags, gateCompletion, authorizedScope, workspace/not-yet-created and currentFingerprint in the one checkpoint through every delegation, multi-repo handoff and recovery. Read full original artifacts on demand; recency and a terse summary are not proof.
Ordered chain
- Owner calls report-only
ss-inspect, or reuses a complete verified report for this Problem ID. Require independent corroborating evidence and understanding of relevant design/implementation, causal flow and affected paths before repair. Keep Violated Invariant:, Owning Boundary:, Patch-Style Alternative Rejected: and Repositories Requiring Fix:. - Before root-cause confirmation, validate applicable delta when semantics change. A restoration of an existing promise uses no-delta only with the specific authoritative promise, unchanged semantics rationale and evidence. Use protected external staged validation mirror when checkout must not yet be mutated. New semantics are a scope decision, not an inferred bug-fix permission.
- Main presents report + repair contract/delta and records real human root-cause confirmation, or explicit eligible --auto policy completion. --decide alone is not approval. Gate binds current report/proposal/spec bytes and evidence; auto is never fabricated human confirmation and grants no new permissions.
- Confirmed multi-repo scope follows detection, carrying flags/gates/checkpoint/Problem ID and stopping this single-repo chain.
- Create authorized full workspace with ss-create-branch, or verify lite workspace. Materialize identical gated artifacts. Owner reuses sufficient repair breakdown or calls ss-plan for a short interface/invariant/test-intent map; no repeated RCA.
- Call ss-coding for real focused regression RED -> minimum GREEN -> refactor; archive/materialize/rebase and complete required commits before review, only with existing Git authorization. Freeze the committed identity for PR delivery or preserve honest local delivery; then fresh independent review. Group accepted fixes with the same owner and obtain fresh impact review when substantive.
- One retained verifier runs final full validation AFTER APPROVED review on the same currentFingerprint. Preserve failures -> targeted owner fix -> fresh impact review -> retained current validation. Never parallelize review and full tests.
- ss-create-pr reports an actual PR or honest local delivery; never merge/deploy. Cleanup needs separate authorization. Full and lite share all quality gates.
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.
- 12d ago Changed · -169 lines · -47 tokens per session 4b213f4aeb1b
- 1mo ago First seen · 227 lines · 79 tokens per session scan A e7131017f1d3
ss-troubleshooting-workflow is a skill published in the GitHub repository lbk-open/super-spec (2 stars, last pushed 12d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 735 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
performance-reviewer
Cross-language perf review — N+1, missing indexes, blocking I/O in async, allocation hot paths, unbounded memory, slow algorithms. Findings grounded in EXPLAIN / pprof / py-spy / metrics. Use when reviewing for perf or investigating a slow endpoint.
code-design-refactor
Design-level refactoring rules — extraction, decoupling, SRP, encapsulation, primitive obsession. Language-agnostic. Sits between logic-cleaner (expression-level) and improve-codebase-architecture (system-level). Use when restructuring existing code at the module/class/function level.
logic-cleaner
Expression-level code cleanup — guard clauses, naming, magic values, conditional simplification, duplication. Language-agnostic. Out of scope: architecture, module decomposition. Use when user asks to clean code, simplify expressions, flatten nesting, or invokes /logic-cleaner.
release
CONTRIBUTOR TOOL - Cut a plugin release: bump plugin.json version, finalize CHANGELOG, update README if needed, gate on make ci, commit, tag vX.Y.Z, and create the GitHub release. Use when shipping a new plugin version. NOT distributed.
watch-pr
Watch an Elixir/Phoenix PR for new review comments (bot + human) and CI results via a background watcher that wakes Claude only on real events. Use after opening a PR or pushing, while waiting on CI or reviewers.
audit
Project health audit and health check — architecture, performance, tests, dependencies, code quality. Use when assessing overall project health, before releases, or after refactors.