Moltis is a persistent personal agent server written in Rust that runs on hardware controlled by its user. It provides an AI agent with sandboxed command execution, model-provider connections, memory, voice, scheduling, messaging integrations, browser automation, and MCP tools. Its catalogue add-ons extend the agent’s workflows and available tools.
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 moltis-org/moltis --skill systematic-debugginggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/moltis-org/moltisWrote 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/moltis-org/moltis/systematic-debugging)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/moltis-org/moltis/systematic-debugging"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/moltis-org/moltis/systematic-debugging/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/moltis-org/moltis/systematic-debugging"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/moltis-org/moltis/systematic-debugging.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 | $0.00033 | $0.02431 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00972 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00486 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00243 |
Grade A, and why
systematic-debugging 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.
Copies of this mod
8 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- systematic-debugging — 97% identical, 18 lines differ
- systematic-debugging — 95% identical, 15 lines differ
- systematic-debugging — 95% identical, 15 lines differ
- systematic-debugging — 95% identical, 17 lines differ
- systematic-debugging — 95% identical, 15 lines differ
- systematic-debugging — 95% identical, 19 lines differ
- systematic-debugging — 95% identical, 15 lines differ
- systematic-debugging — 94% identical, 94 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 364 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Systematic Debugging
Overview
Random fixes waste time and create new bugs. Quick patches mask underlying issues.
Core principle: ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes. Symptom fixes are failure.
Violating the letter of this process is violating the spirit of debugging.
The Iron Law
NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST
If you haven't completed Phase 1, you cannot propose fixes.
When to Use
Use for ANY technical issue:
- Test failures
- Bugs in production
- Unexpected behavior
- Performance problems
- Build failures
- Integration issues
Use this ESPECIALLY when:
- Under time pressure (emergencies make guessing tempting)
- "Just one quick fix" seems obvious
- You've already tried multiple fixes
- Previous fix didn't work
- You don't fully understand the issue
Don't skip when:
- Issue seems simple (simple bugs have root causes too)
- You're in a hurry (rushing guarantees rework)
- Someone wants it fixed NOW (systematic is faster than thrashing)
The Four Phases
You MUST complete each phase before proceeding to the next.
Phase 1: Root Cause Investigation
BEFORE attempting ANY fix:
1. Read Error Messages Carefully
- Don't skip past errors or warnings
- They often contain the exact solution
- Read stack traces completely
- Note line numbers, file paths, error codes
Action: Use read_file on the relevant source files. Use search_files to find the error string in the codebase.
2. Reproduce Consistently
- Can you trigger it reliably?
- What are the exact steps?
- Does it happen every time?
- If not reproducible → gather more data, don't guess
Action: Use the terminal tool to run the failing test or trigger the bug:
# Run specific failing test
pytest tests/test_module.py::test_name -v
# Run with verbose output
pytest tests/test_module.py -v --tb=long
3. Check Recent Changes
- What changed that could cause this?
- Git diff, recent commits
- New dependencies, config changes
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 · 364 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 9a97aab450ce
systematic-debugging is a skill published in the GitHub repository moltis-org/moltis (2,902 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 2,431 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
stack-trace-rust-probe
Internal helper for meta-stack-trace-investigator. Use when a Rust panic or backtrace needs Rust-specific Result/Option checks, cargo test guidance, and patch targets.
rust-tracing
Add or change Rust diagnostic tracing in litellm-rust, including route spans, subscriber layers, and Python logger delivery.
self-map
Your evidence and how you work: one Trace turn to its cause and whose it is (owner side, the Version, outside); spend, schedules, failures, the journal, docs; what Stop, Interrupt or a break leave; where to look before asking. Load in an Insight turn with failures, when the owner asks what you did, why it failed, what…
report-problem
A troubleshooting procedure for a broken Iva assistant, schedule, tool, or delivery. It collects a diagnostic report, checks recent logs and facts, and prepares either an issue report or a support-chat message.
regex
Write, test, and debug regular expressions for pattern matching, search, and text extraction across programming languages. Use when the user asks to match patterns in text, validate input formats (email, URL, IP, phone, date), extract data with capture groups, build search patterns with lookahead or lookbehind, or…
code-analysis
LSP-based code analysis via mcpls MCP server. Use for compiler-accurate type inspection, go-to-definition, find-all-references, diagnostics, call hierarchy, workspace symbol search, code actions, rename refactoring, and document formatting. Provides real compiler errors — not guesses. Keywords: LSP, language server…