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 me-cedric/agent-compass --skill debuggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/me-cedric/agent-compassWrote 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/me-cedric/agent-compass/debug)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/me-cedric/agent-compass/debug"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/me-cedric/agent-compass/debug/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/me-cedric/agent-compass/debug"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/me-cedric/agent-compass/debug.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 | $0.00042 | $0.00679 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00272 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00136 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00068 |
Grade A, and why
debug 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 77 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
debug
No theory before the loop. First build one command that catches the exact symptom.
Loop ladder
Stop at the first rung that catches the bug.
- An existing focused test.
- A new smallest regression test.
- A CLI or script with fixture input.
- An HTTP request against a running service.
- A Playwright or browser script for a UI bug.
- A replay of a captured trace.
- A small harness around one function or module.
- A stress loop for a flaky bug.
Tighten the loop
The loop must be:
- Specific: it asserts the symptom that the user reported, not "does not crash".
- Fast: seconds when possible.
- Deterministic: the same verdict each time, or a high reproduction rate for a flake.
- Runnable by an agent: no manual clicks, unless a written script wraps them.
A loop that asserts an absence needs a floor. A blank page has no forbidden class, and a process that never started writes no forbidden log line. Assert that the subject exists, then assert the absence. Wait for the floor, do not sample it once. Collect the survivors in a list and assert that the list is empty, so a failure names each survivor. A static search proves only that a literal is absent from the source.
Work
- Name the loop command. Run it once and see it fail.
- Remove inputs until each remaining part is needed.
- Change one thing at a time.
- Keep the loop as the regression check.
- Report the command, the failing result, the passing result and the remaining uncertainty.
Evidence from the running system
When read-only Grafana, ArgoCD or Kubernetes MCP servers are configured, use them for evidence:
- Grafana: the logs, metrics and traces of the failing window.
- ArgoCD: the sync state and the deployed revision of the app.
- Kubernetes: pod status, events and logs.
Use them read-only. Never change a dashboard, a sync, or a cluster resource from this skill. Never read a Secret. If a server is not configured, say so. Do not ask the user to add write access.
A claim of change needs a control
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 Changed · -5 tokens per session c57688d05012
- 10d ago First seen · 77 lines · 47 tokens per session scan A 2458420e9178
debug is a skill published in the GitHub repository me-cedric/agent-compass (3 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 679 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 2026-10-18.
Other skills, from other repositories
ios-simulator
Verify and debug native, React Native, Expo, or Flutter apps on an iOS Simulator with agent-device. Use when an agent needs to launch an app, inspect its live UI, tap, type, scroll, validate a code change, collect failure evidence, or reproduce a workflow on an iPhone or iPad Simulator.
ai-discover
Read-only discovery step of the auto-improvement loop. One bounded agent turn per cycle reads the focus files (Read/Grep/Glob only, no shell, no subagents) and replies with a JSON array of testable surfaces {file, line, symbol, rule, message, hypothesis}; the spine authors fixes and verifies them. Discovery only — no…
maintain-formal-verification-skill
Bring a project's formal verification back in line with the code after the code changes: find the commits that touched verified code, update the model, harness, or properties to describe the code as it is now, rerun, and say whether each failure is drift in the verification or a bug in the code. Use for…
moai-workflow-loop
Ralph Engine - Automated feedback loop with LSP diagnostics and AST-grep integration for continuous code quality improvement. Use when implementing error-driven development, automated fixing, or continuous quality validation workflows.
moai-workflow-testing
Use when writing tests, measuring coverage, or running characterization, performance, or PR-review QA. Comprehensive specialist combining DDD testing, characterization tests, performance profiling, and TRUST 5 quality-assurance validation.
evidence-audit
Evidence-led audit/fix rounds for any codebase in any language. Finds only defects that a runnable proof reproduces on current code, applies the narrowest in-scope patch, verifies with a second proof, promotes high-risk proofs to permanent regression tests, and reports exact validation results. Use whenever the user…