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 Miosa-osa/OSA --skill diagnosing-bugsgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Miosa-osa/OSAWrote 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/miosa-osa/osa/diagnosing-bugs)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/miosa-osa/osa/diagnosing-bugs"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/miosa-osa/osa/diagnosing-bugs/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/miosa-osa/osa/diagnosing-bugs"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/miosa-osa/osa/diagnosing-bugs.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 | $0.00051 | $0.00402 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00161 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00080 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00040 |
Grade A, and why
diagnosing-bugs 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 2mo 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.
What it actually says
Diagnosing Bugs
Find the real failure before changing production code. Treat a plausible explanation as a hypothesis, not a result.
Procedure
- Translate the report into an observable failure and an expected behavior.
- Reproduce it end to end as closely as possible to the user path.
- Preserve the failing command, fixture, screenshot, trace, or test as evidence.
- Minimize the reproduction without changing the failure.
- Rank concrete hypotheses and identify what observation would distinguish each one.
- Inspect or instrument the narrowest relevant seam.
- Add a regression test that fails for the reproduced defect.
- Make the smallest robust fix at the cause, not at a downstream symptom.
- Run the regression test, nearby tests, and the original end-to-end reproduction.
- Report what caused the failure, what changed, and what remains unproven.
Rules
- Do not edit merely because a suspicious line was found.
- Do not weaken a test to make the current behavior pass.
- For visual bugs, verify in a real terminal or browser at the dimensions and interaction that triggered the report.
- For intermittent bugs, add logging or deterministic scheduling before guessing.
- If the same diagnostic action produces identical evidence repeatedly, change the experiment.
Completion evidence
A diagnosis is complete only when the evidence distinguishes the chosen cause from credible alternatives. A fix is complete only when the original user-facing reproduction and the regression test both pass.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 47 lines · 51 tokens per session scan A fac2394f42e7
diagnosing-bugs is a skill published in the GitHub repository Miosa-osa/OSA (78 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 51 tokens to every session and 402 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 2026-08-30.
diagnosing-bugs compared with skills from other repositories
| Mod | Type | Stars | Last push | Licence | Scan | Tokens | Works with |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| diagnosing-bugsMiosa-osa/OSA | Skill | 78 | 9d ago | Apache-2.0 | A | 51 | Claude Code, Codex |
| systematic-debuggingMRWillisT/PullNexus | Skill | 8 | 6mo ago | none | A | 21 | Claude Code |
| python-debugpyNousResearch/hermes-agent | Skill | 261k | yesterday | MIT | B | 17 | Claude Code, Codex |
| sglang-diffusion-benchmark-profilesgl-project/sglang | Skill | 39k | yesterday | Apache-2.0 | A | 26 | Claude Code, Codex |
| resolve-handoffomnigent-ai/omnigent | Skill | 11k | yesterday | Apache-2.0 | A | 23 | Claude Code, Codex |
| debug-with-langwatchlangwatch/langwatch | Skill | 5.0k | yesterday | Apache-2.0 | A | 63 | Claude Code, Codex |
| trulens-diagnosistruera/trulens | Skill | 3.6k | yesterday | MIT | A | 17 | Claude Code, Codex |