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 spideynolove/claude-dotfiles --skill rlm-debugginggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/spideynolove/claude-dotfilesWrote 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/spideynolove/claude-dotfiles/rlm-debugging)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/spideynolove/claude-dotfiles/rlm-debugging"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/spideynolove/claude-dotfiles/rlm-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/spideynolove/claude-dotfiles/rlm-debugging"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/spideynolove/claude-dotfiles/rlm-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 | $0.00070 | $0.03307 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00028 | $0.01323 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00661 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00331 |
Grade A, and why
rlm-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.
This is a copy
86% identical to recursive-debugging — 68 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 — 478 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
RLM Systematic Debugging (Phase 1.5)
Overview
When a requirement involves fixing a bug or investigating unexpected behavior, ad-hoc fixes waste time and create new bugs. Systematic debugging finds the root cause before any fix is attempted.
Core Principle: ALWAYS find root cause before attempting fixes. Symptom fixes are failure.
The Iron Law for RLM Debugging:
NO FIXES WITHOUT ROOT CAUSE INVESTIGATION FIRST
Trigger examples
Tests are failing after the last change; debug itFix crash on empty inputInvestigate why the API returns wrong dataDo a root cause analysis before making changes
When to Use
Mandatory Phase 1.5 when:
- Requirement is a bug fix
- Test failures need investigation
- Unexpected behavior reported
- Performance problems
- Integration issues
Use ESPECIALLY when:
- Under time pressure (emergencies make guessing tempting)
- "Just one quick fix" seems obvious
- Previous fix attempts failed
- 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)
Phase 1.5 Insertion
Phase 1.5 is inserted between Phase 1 (AS-IS) and Phase 2 (TO-BE Plan) when debugging is required:
Phase 0: 00-requirements.md
->
Phase 1: 01-as-is.md (captures current behavior)
->
Phase 1.5: 01.5-root-cause.md <- NEW (this skill)
->
Phase 2: 02-to-be-plan.md (includes fix plan based on root cause)
The Four Phases of Systematic Debugging
digraph debugging_phases {
rankdir=TB;
phase1 [label="Step 1:\nRoot Cause Investigation", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ffcccc"];
phase2 [label="Step 2:\nPattern Analysis", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ffffcc"];
phase3 [label="Step 3:\nHypothesis & Testing", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccffcc"];
phase4 [label="Step 4:\nFix Implementation", shape=box, style=filled, fillcolor="#ccccff"];
phase1 -> phase2 -> phase3 -> phase4;
// Feedback loops
phase3 -> phase1 [label="hypothesis\nfailed", style=dashed];
phase4 -> phase1 [label="fix\nfailed", style=dashed];
}
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 · 478 lines · 70 tokens per session scan A be5864724ac3
rlm-debugging is a skill published in the GitHub repository spideynolove/claude-dotfiles (2 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 70 tokens to every session and 3,307 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 86% identical to recursive-debugging, differing in 68 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
debug-optimize-lcp
Guides debugging and optimizing Largest Contentful Paint (LCP) using Chrome DevTools MCP tools. Use this skill whenever the user asks about LCP performance, slow page loads, Core Web Vitals optimization, or wants to understand why their page's main content takes too long to appear. Also use when the user mentions…
systematic-debugging
Use when debugging a failing test, build error, or runtime issue that isn't immediately obvious. Guides a 4-phase root cause analysis instead of random fix attempts.
log-error-digest
Analyze log files to troubleshoot errors, identify peak error periods, and produce error clustering, frequency statistics, and time distribution reports. Supports JSON, syslog, and Nginx formats with automatic detection. Use when a user uploads a .log file and asks to analyze errors, find patterns, debug issues, or…
cwv-optimizer
Diagnose and fix Core Web Vitals issues on AEM Edge Delivery Services pages. Goes deeper than generic CWV advice by understanding EDS-specific performance patterns including the 100KB LCP budget, E-L-D loading phases, block rendering behavior, and third-party script impact. Produces specific fixes for LCP, CLS, and…
incident-response-incident-response
Coordinate production incident triage, mitigation, investigation, recovery, and follow-up. Use when responding to outages or other incidents that require structured operational coordination.
ci-fixer
CI failures - read error, minimal fix, verify.