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 marker-io/mcp-skills --skill marker-bug-to-fixgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/marker-io/mcp-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/marker-io/mcp-skills/marker-bug-to-fix)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/marker-io/mcp-skills/marker-bug-to-fix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/marker-io/mcp-skills/marker-bug-to-fix/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/marker-io/mcp-skills/marker-bug-to-fix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/marker-io/mcp-skills/marker-bug-to-fix.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 | $0.00080 | $0.00940 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00040 | $0.00470 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00188 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00094 |
Grade A, and why
marker-bug-to-fix 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 11d 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 — 65 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
marker-bug-to-fix
Take a single Marker.io issue and turn it into a ready-to-review code change in the current repo. Cuts the report-to-fix round-trip from a manual context hunt to a minimal diff in minutes.
When to use
The user points at one Marker.io issue and wants it fixed or root-caused in this codebase: "fix marker
issue <id>", "what's causing this bug", "investigate <marker link>". For triaging many issues at
once, use marker-triage.
Steps
- Load the issue:
issue_get(full) andissue_get_context(browser/OS/screen + console + network summaries). Read the reporter's description and the page URL. - Pull the evidence that localizes the bug:
issue_get_screenshotfor the visual state, the failingissue_get_console_log(logIndex)entries (stack traces), the failing/slowissue_get_network_request(requestIndex)(status, payload, response), andissue_get_attachmentsif any. - Map signals to code: from the URL/route, error messages, stack frames, and failing endpoints, use Grep/Glob/Read to find the responsible component, handler, or query in the working repo.
- State the root cause in one or two sentences. If you cannot localize it, say what extra info is
needed (and consider posting a gated
comment_createasking the reporter). - Propose a minimal fix as a diff. Prefer the smallest change that addresses the root cause. Show it for review before changing files.
- Verify with the project's own tooling: hand off to the
/verifyskill, or run the relevant test, to confirm the fix behaves. - Open the PR via the
/prskill.
Marker writes (gated)
Propose, then apply after confirmation:
- Set the issue to an in-progress status (
issue_update_status, using a status discovered viaproject_get). - Post a root-cause + fix summary as a
comment_create(link the PR). Keep itMember-onlyunless the reporter should see it.
Operating rules
This skill drives the Marker.io MCP. Read tools: projects_list, project_get, project_list_users,
list_issue_types, issues_list, issue_get, issue_get_context, issue_get_screenshot,
issue_get_attachments, issue_get_console_log, issue_get_network_request. Write tools:
issue_update_status, issue_update_assignee, issue_update_priority, issue_update_type,
comment_create.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 65 lines · 80 tokens per session scan A f45ab69d1ade
marker-bug-to-fix is a skill published in the GitHub repository marker-io/mcp-skills (7 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 80 tokens to every session and 940 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 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-optimization
Optimizes application performance across frontend, backend, queries, and databases. Use when performance requirements exist, when you suspect performance regressions, when Core Web Vitals or load times need improvement, when N+1 query patterns need fixing, or when profiling reveals bottlenecks.
doubt-driven-development
Subjects every non-trivial decision to a fresh-context adversarial review before it stands. Use when you want every assumption cross-examined before proceeding, when stress-testing a plan for hidden failure modes, when correctness matters more than speed, when working in unfamiliar code, when stakes are high…
debugging-and-error-recovery
Guides systematic root-cause debugging. Use when tests fail, builds break, something that worked yesterday broke, behavior doesn't match expectations, or you encounter any unexpected error. Use when you need to figure out what broke and why — a systematic approach to finding and fixing the root cause rather than…
error-handling
Graceful degradation and meaningful error messages. Errors are first-class citizens, not afterthoughts. Every error path is designed, not discovered.
debugging-and-error-recovery
Guides systematic root-cause debugging with hard rules against guess-fixes and symptom suppression. Use when tests fail, builds break, behavior doesn't match expectations, or you encounter any unexpected error. Triggers on "this is broken", "tests are failing", "why doesn't this work", or any error output.
debugging-and-error-recovery
A systematic debugging procedure for finding the underlying cause of failed tests, broken builds, bugs, and unexpected behavior. It emphasizes reproducing the problem, preserving evidence, fixing the cause, and checking the fix.