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 agentmods add skills/sifxprime/kodelyth-ecc/agent-introspection-debuggingnpx skills add sifxprime/kodelyth-ecc --skill agent-introspection-debugginggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sifxprime/kodelyth-eccWrote 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/sifxprime/kodelyth-ecc/agent-introspection-debugging)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sifxprime/kodelyth-ecc/agent-introspection-debugging"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sifxprime/kodelyth-ecc/agent-introspection-debugging.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00028 | $0.01136 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00568 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00227 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00114 |
Grade A, and why
agent-introspection-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 yesterday.
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
100% identical to agent-introspection-debugging — 3 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 — 154 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Agent Introspection Debugging
Use this skill when an agent run is failing repeatedly, consuming tokens without progress, looping on the same tools, or drifting away from the intended task.
This is a workflow skill, not a hidden runtime. It teaches the agent to debug itself systematically before escalating to a human.
When to Activate
- Maximum tool call / loop-limit failures
- Repeated retries with no forward progress
- Context growth or prompt drift that starts degrading output quality
- File-system or environment state mismatch between expectation and reality
- Tool failures that are likely recoverable with diagnosis and a smaller corrective action
Scope Boundaries
Activate this skill for:
- capturing failure state before retrying blindly
- diagnosing common agent-specific failure patterns
- applying contained recovery actions
- producing a structured human-readable debug report
Do not use this skill as the primary source for:
- feature verification after code changes; use
verification-loop - framework-specific debugging when a narrower ECC skill already exists
- runtime promises the current harness cannot enforce automatically
Four-Phase Loop
Phase 1: Failure Capture
Before trying to recover, record the failure precisely.
Capture:
- error type, message, and stack trace when available
- last meaningful tool call sequence
- what the agent was trying to do
- current context pressure: repeated prompts, oversized pasted logs, duplicated plans, or runaway notes
- current environment assumptions: cwd, branch, relevant service state, expected files
Minimum capture template:
## Failure Capture
- Session / task:
- Goal in progress:
- Error:
- Last successful step:
- Last failed tool / command:
- Repeated pattern seen:
- Environment assumptions to verify:
Phase 2: Root-Cause Diagnosis
Match the failure to a known pattern before changing anything.
| Pattern | Likely Cause | Check |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum tool calls / repeated same command | loop or no-exit observer path | inspect the last N tool calls for repetition |
| Context overflow / degraded reasoning | unbounded notes, repeated plans, oversized logs | inspect recent context for duplication and low-signal bulk |
ECONNREFUSED / timeout |
service unavailable or wrong port | verify service health, URL, and port assumptions |
429 / quota exhaustion |
retry storm or missing backoff | count repeated calls and inspect retry spacing |
| file missing after write / stale diff | race, wrong cwd, or branch drift | re-check path, cwd, git status, and actual file existence |
| tests still failing after “fix” | wrong hypothesis | isolate the exact failing test and re-derive the bug |
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.
- yesterday First seen · 154 lines · 28 tokens per session scan A aff0d52785d3
agent-introspection-debugging is a skill published in the GitHub repository sifxprime/kodelyth-ecc (11 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 28 tokens to every session and 1,136 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to agent-introspection-debugging, differing in 3 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
foolproof-product
Use this skill on ANY code change in codevira's product surface (mcpserver/, indexer/). Triggers on Edit/Write to product code, on phrases like "fix bug", "add feature", "handle error", or any modification to commands the end-user runs. Enforces 10 product- reliability principles: no silent failures, atomic state…
epistemic-honesty
Use this skill whenever you're about to (1) make a definitive claim like "this works", "tests pass", "ready to ship", "fixed", "done"; or (2) propose a solution to a problem; or (3) diagnose a bug or issue. Forces explicit confidence calibration with inline evidence, surfaces what you don't know, and demands a…
open-source-quality
Use this skill before committing, pushing, or opening a PR. Triggers on phrases like "commit", "git commit", "push", "open PR", "create pull request", "finalize this change". Enforces conventional commit messages, atomic commits, code style (ruff/mypy), public-API docstrings, actionable error messages, changelog…
release-readiness
Use this skill whenever the conversation mentions releasing, shipping, publishing, promoting to PyPI, "ship it", "release X.Y.Z", "ready to release", "let's publish", or any phrase suggesting moving codevira to production. Walks the 5-gate release gauntlet (G1-G5) and refuses to proceed without evidence at every gate.…
development-discipline
Use this skill before ANY code-writing tool call (Edit, Write, NotebookEdit) on this project. Triggers on phrases like "implement", "fix bug", "add feature", "refactor", "create function", "modify file", or whenever the user asks for a code change. Forces a 4-step CONTEXT → PURPOSE → REASON → CODE sequence with…
practical-coding
Use for implementing, fixing, refactoring, or reviewing code with the smallest correct change; routes only unresolved debugging, architecture/choice, or risk-boundary blockers, while code retrieval uses the cheapest sufficient available capability.