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 nWave-ai/nWave --skill nw-bugfixgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/nWave-ai/nWaveWrote 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/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-bugfix)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-bugfix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-bugfix/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/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-bugfix"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-bugfix.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Agent Snooping · line 41 Skill enumerates or reads other installed skills. Access to other skills' SKILL.md files or the skills directory reveals prompt instructions, capabilities, and secrets that should be invisible to peer skills.Fix: Remove all code or instructions that list or read other skills' files or directories. Skills should operate independently; cross-skill access is a privilege escalation.
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 | $0.00023 | $0.01466 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00586 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00293 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00147 |
Grade A, and why
nw-bugfix 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 — 166 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
NW-BUGFIX: Defect Resolution Workflow
Wave: CROSS_WAVE Agents: Rex (nw-troubleshooter) → selected crafter (OOP or FP per project paradigm)
Overview
End-to-end bug fix pipeline: diagnose root cause, review findings with user, then deliver regression tests that fail with the bug and pass with the fix. Ensures every defect produces a test that prevents recurrence.
Flow
INPUT: "{bug-description}"
│
├─ Phase 1: Root Cause Analysis (@nw-troubleshooter)
│ └─ /nw-root-why "{bug-description}"
│ └─ Output: RCA document with root cause chain + fix proposal
│
├─ Phase 2: User Review (INTERACTIVE — STOP here)
│ └─ Present RCA findings to user
│ └─ User confirms root cause + approves fix direction
│ └─ If user rejects → refine RCA or stop
│
└─ Phase 3: Regression Test + Fix
└─ /nw-deliver "fix-{bug-id}" — roadmap-based bugfix flow
└─ Paradigm detection determines crafter (OOP or FP)
└─ Regression test (RED) → fix (GREEN) → verify (COMMIT)
Execution Steps
Phase 1: Root Cause Analysis
Skill loading: The troubleshooter loads its skills from ~/.claude/skills/nw-{skill}/SKILL.md:
nw-five-whys-methodology— core investigation methodologynw-investigation-techniques— systematic debugging patternsnw-post-mortem-framework— structured incident analysis
Invoke @nw-troubleshooter via Agent tool:
Execute *investigate-root-cause for the following defect:
{bug-description}
Configuration:
- investigation_depth: 5
- multi_causal: true
- evidence_required: true
Produce:
1. Root cause chain (5 Whys with evidence at each level)
2. Contributing factors
3. Proposed fix with specific code changes
4. Files affected
5. Risk assessment of the fix
After the troubleshooter returns, present findings to the user. Include:
- Root cause summary (1-2 sentences)
- Evidence chain
- Proposed fix
- Files to modify
- Risk level
STOP and wait for user confirmation before proceeding to Phase 3.
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 · 166 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A 3c64388ea528
nw-bugfix is a skill published in the GitHub repository nWave-ai/nWave (621 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 1,466 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
behavior-contract
Bug condition/postcondition formalization as testable Behavior Contracts. Defines invariants that must be preserved across fixes.
debugging
A structured method for finding and fixing software bugs. It starts by writing a test that reproduces the failure, then investigates its underlying cause before making a small fix.
hk-rca
Interactive Root Cause Analysis enforcer. Guides you through the 7-step RCA protocol: Reproduce, Locate, Hypothesis, Failing Test, Fix, Verify Live, Document. Use when debugging a bug, investigating a failure, or when something unexpected happened. This skill gates each step — it won't let you skip to a fix without…
debug-flow
Systematic debugging workflow. Reproduce the issue, isolate root cause, write a failing test, fix, verify. Use when diagnosing bugs or unexpected behavior.
team-fix
Use for the full bug-fix pipeline only on explicit request. Never infer from an ordinary bug fix. Runs the compressed pipeline.
investigate
Root-cause a bug, test failure, CI failure, or unexpected behavior before changing code. Reproduce, compare against working code, test one hypothesis at a time, then fix with a failing regression test first. Stops after three failed fixes to question the design, and requires fresh evidence before any "fixed" claim.…