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 lexfrei/ccc --skill taguchigit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/lexfrei/cccWrote 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/lexfrei/ccc/taguchi)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lexfrei/ccc/taguchi"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lexfrei/ccc/taguchi/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/lexfrei/ccc/taguchi"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lexfrei/ccc/taguchi.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00174 | $0.04338 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00070 | $0.01735 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00035 | $0.00868 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00434 |
Grade A, and why
taguchi 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 — 233 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Replace one-factor-at-a-time debugging with a designed experiment. An orthogonal array covers every pair of factor levels in a handful of runs, so any behavior caused by one factor or by a two-factor interaction is guaranteed to show up in at least one run. 11 binary factors need 12 runs instead of 2048.
Every run changes several factors at once. That feels wrong to debugging intuition — resist the urge to "change only one thing". The analysis is column-wise (compare all runs where factor X was at level 1 vs level 2), not row-wise, and the balance of the array is what makes that comparison fair.
Step 0 — gate
Confirm all of these before proceeding; otherwise use the cheaper tool and say so:
- 3+ candidate factors. One factor → plain bisection. Two factors → just run the 2×2 (4 runs).
- Runs are expensive. If a run is seconds, brute-force the full factorial instead.
- Factors are independently settable. If setting A=2 forces B=2, merge them into one factor.
- At most ~11 factors — that is the 2-level ceiling; 3-level factors cap out at 7 (plus one 2-level) in L18. More than that means the suspect list was never narrowed — shrink it first (the shrink skill in this plugin), then design the array for the survivors.
- The array has to be meaningfully cheaper than the factorial. Three 2-level factors are 4 runs against 8 — a 2x saving that does not pay for the ceremony or for confounding interactions. Below roughly 3x, run the factorial and read the interactions directly;
design.pyprints the ratio and says so.
Sibling skills cover the neighboring shapes: an expected single culprit among many boolean toggles → shrink; level counts that fit no array below → pairwise; optimizing knobs rather than hunting a culprit → tune.
Step 1 — factors and levels
Build the factor table with the user (or from the debugging context). Force every factor to 2 or 3 discrete levels:
- Boolean or on/off → 2 levels.
- Versions → current vs suspected-bad (2 levels), add a third only if a middle version genuinely discriminates.
- Continuous values (timeout, batch size, memory limit) → the two extremes of the plausible range; a midpoint only as a third level.
- A factor nobody can articulate a level for is not a factor — drop it or fix it at its current value.
- A factor you can observe but not set (region, node shape, neighbor load) is a covariate, not a column: record its value for every run and check it during analysis (step 5).
What ships with it
9 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.
- scripts/analyze.py 25 KB runs code
- scripts/arrays.py 2.6 KB runs code
- scripts/design.py 6.8 KB runs code
- scripts/experiment.py 11 KB runs code
- scripts/run.py 7.2 KB runs code
- scripts/test_analyze.py 9.7 KB runs code
- scripts/test_design.py 4.0 KB runs code
- scripts/test_experiment.py 5.3 KB runs code
- scripts/test_run.py 6.8 KB runs code
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 First seen · 233 lines · 174 tokens per session scan A efb9ff4d8245
taguchi is a skill published in the GitHub repository lexfrei/ccc (11 stars, last pushed 14d ago), licensed BSD-3-Clause. It adds 174 tokens to every session and 4,338 once invoked, about $0.0007 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
systematic-debugging
4-phase root cause debugging: understand bugs before fixing.
langsmith-observability
LLM observability platform for tracing, evaluation, and monitoring. Use when debugging LLM applications, evaluating model outputs against datasets, monitoring production systems, or building systematic testing pipelines for AI applications.
test-failure-explorer
Import and query an existing Vitest 3.2 JSON report to explore test failures, file-level errors and original diagnostic evidence.
experimental-code-coverage-local-debugger
Runs code coverage locally via Universal Test Runner (UTR) or helper scripts, mimicking LUCI trybots. Activate when CQ tryjobs fail or underreport coverage, to test local GN/recipe repairs before uploading, or to debug hermetic crashes.
verify-omnigent
Drive Omnigent the way a user does and prove a behavior with recorded evidence, using an isolated server, runner, and mock model plus a feature map of every user entry point. Load before reproducing a user-facing bug, before claiming a fix works, or when reviewing whether a change covered every surface (session vs.…
cli-e2e
Write, modify, or debug Docker-based Composio CLI end-to-end tests under ts/e2e-tests/cli, including binary invocation, fixture isolation, output assertions, and package manifests. Use for CLI E2E test suites only; use cli-command for CLI source implementation.