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 oleg494/coding-kit --skill systematic-debugginggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/oleg494/coding-kitWrote 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/oleg494/coding-kit/systematic-debugging)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/oleg494/coding-kit/systematic-debugging"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/oleg494/coding-kit/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/oleg494/coding-kit/systematic-debugging"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/oleg494/coding-kit/systematic-debugging.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 | $0.00021 | $0.02428 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00971 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00486 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $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 2d 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.
This is a copy
95% identical to systematic-debugging — 90 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 298 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Systematic Debugging
Overview
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)
- Manager 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:
-
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
-
Reproduce Consistently
- Can you trigger it reliably?
- What are the exact steps?
- Does it happen every time?
- A user-reported failure is ground truth for the symptom; reproduce locally when diagnosis needs it, when building a regression check, or when the report alone is insufficient to localize.
- Not reproducible with available evidence → gather more data, don't guess; say what is unavailable rather than assuming the report wrong.
-
Check Recent Changes
- What changed that could cause this?
- Git diff, recent commits
- New dependencies, config changes
- Environmental differences
-
Gather Evidence in Multi-Component Systems
WHEN system has multiple components (CI → build → signing, API → service → database):
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 2d ago Changed · +1 lines dde6dd34937f
- 9d ago Changed 8d726ac5558c
- 11d ago Changed c042d19f10ce
- 25d ago Changed 7ad26dd09a50
- 27d ago Changed b0ce82e9dba2
- 1mo ago Changed 352e2f9ebc61
- 1mo ago Changed · -13 lines 37e420ceaab5
- 1mo ago Changed 09ac76a90a82
- 1mo ago Changed 9f1e25fdc001
- 1mo ago First seen · 310 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A 5d339b2eb6bf
systematic-debugging is a skill published in the GitHub repository oleg494/coding-kit (3 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 2,428 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 95% identical to systematic-debugging, differing in 90 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
spae-fix
Remediates pre-classified SPAE task gaps. Use after /check writes FIX.md and moves an active task to phase fix.
troubleshoot
Troubleshoot systematically: observe, hypothesize, test, fix, verify.
refactor
Refactor code to fix DRY, SOLID, and Structure violations while preserving behavior.
tracely
Instrument AI agents with Tracely and turn their production traces into CI gates. Use when the user mentions Tracely, tracely-ai, tracelysdk, the tracely CLI, or asks to trace/observe an AI agent, add LLM evaluators or LLM-as-a-judge columns, debug why a trace or conversation isn't showing up, wire agent regression…
debugging-livekit-agents
Drives a multi-turn conversation with a LiveKit agent running locally to see what it does. Use when the user says "test my agent", "try my agent", "does this work", "why did it call that tool", "it says the wrong thing when I ask X", "test this change", or whenever you have edited an agent and need to check how it…
gcloud-usage
This skill should be used when user asks about "GCloud logs", "Cloud Logging queries", "Google Cloud metrics", "GCP observability", "trace analysis", or "debugging production issues on GCP".