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 This-HW/claude-code-kit --skill debuggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/This-HW/claude-code-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/this-hw/claude-code-kit/debug)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/this-hw/claude-code-kit/debug"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/this-hw/claude-code-kit/debug/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/this-hw/claude-code-kit/debug"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/this-hw/claude-code-kit/debug.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 | $0.00024 | $0.00912 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00365 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00182 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00091 |
Grade A, and why
debug 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 — 130 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
디버깅 실행
4-Phase Debugging (Superpowers 패턴) Reproduce → Isolate → Fix → Verify
즉시 실행하세요. 설명하지 말고 바로 실행합니다.
에러 정보: $ARGUMENTS
파이프라인 구조
┌──────────────┐ ┌──────────────┐ ┌──────────────┐ ┌──────────────┐
│ Phase 1 │ → │ Phase 2 │ → │ Phase 3 │ → │ Phase 4 │
│ Reproduce │ │ Isolate │ │ Fix │ │ Verify │
│ (재현) │ │ (격리) │ │ (수정) │ │ (검증) │
└──────────────┘ └──────────────┘ └──────────────┘ └──────────────┘
│ │ │ │
└──── diagnose ──────┘ fix-bugs ─┘ verify-code ┘
(opus) (sonnet) (haiku)
Phase 1-2: 재현 및 격리 (Reproduce + Isolate)
Task tool 사용:
subagent_type: diagnose
model: opus
prompt: |
다음 에러를 진단해주세요:
$ARGUMENTS
### Phase 1: Reproduce (재현)
- 에러를 재현하는 최소 단계 식별
- 재현 조건 및 환경 확인
- 에러 발생 빈도 (항상/간헐적)
### Phase 2: Isolate (격리)
- 에러 유형 (문법/타입/런타임/빌드/외부API)
- 파일 위치 및 라인 번호
- 스택 트레이스 분석
- 루트 원인 파악
- 영향 범위 (단일 함수/모듈/시스템 전체)
### 수정 방안 제안
- 옵션 A: [빠른 수정]
- 옵션 B: [근본 해결]
Phase 3: 수정 (Fix)
Task tool 사용:
subagent_type: fix-bugs
model: sonnet
prompt: |
[diagnose 결과 포함]
진단 결과를 바탕으로 버그를 수정해주세요.
수정 원칙:
- 최소 변경 원칙
- exc_info=True 포함 (Python 로깅)
- 에러 핸들링 추가 (필요시)
- 같은 패턴의 버그가 다른 곳에 없는지 확인
Phase 4: 검증 (Verify)
Task tool 사용:
subagent_type: verify-code
model: haiku
prompt: |
수정된 코드를 검증해주세요:
[변경된 파일 목록]
검증 항목:
1. 에러 재현 → 해결 확인
2. 빌드/컴파일 성공
3. 타입 체크 통과
4. 관련 테스트 통과
5. 엣지 케이스 확인
출력 형식
Phase 1-2: 재현 및 격리
| 항목 | 내용 |
|---|---|
| 유형 | [타입/런타임/빌드/외부API] |
| 위치 | [파일:라인] |
| 재현 조건 | [최소 재현 단계] |
| 루트 원인 | [원인 설명] |
| 영향 범위 | [함수/모듈/시스템] |
Phase 3: 수정
[변경사항 diff 또는 설명]
Phase 4: 검증
[테스트/빌드 통과 여부]
예방 권장
[재발 방지를 위한 제안]
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 · 130 lines · 24 tokens per session scan A 34fbb7f9c294
debug is a skill published in the GitHub repository This-HW/claude-code-kit (4 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 24 tokens to every session and 912 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
debugging
The scientific debugging loop — reproduce first, pull the real event from the repo's observability stack, one hypothesis → one change → one observation, revert failed attempts, escalate instead of thrash. INVOKE PROACTIVELY when diagnosing any bug, error, stack trace, failing or flaky test, crash, regression, or…
bug-finder
Hunt for one real, previously unreported defect and file it as a well-evidenced ticket — proactive discovery, not reactive diagnosis. INVOKE when asked to sweep code for bugs or hunt risky areas, and when /sonu:factory runs a bug-hunt pass. A known symptom is [[debugging]]; a pending diff is [[self-review]]. It files…
java-perf-check
Quick Java performance scan flagging N+1 queries, memory issues, threading problems, and algorithmic hotspots. Use when user asks to "check performance", "performance scan", "any N+1 queries", "performance issues", "is this efficient", or "slow code".
java-fix
Diagnoses and fixes Java compile errors, runtime exceptions, and stack traces. Use when user asks to "fix this error", "this won't compile", "I'm getting an exception", "debug this", or "build is failing".
postmortem
Auto-generates a structured postmortem from a completed campaign. Reads the campaign file, telemetry logs, and feature ledger. Produces a documented analysis of what broke, what the safety systems caught, and what patterns emerged. Can also be invoked manually for any incident.
systematic-debugging
4-phase root cause analysis: observe, hypothesize, verify, fix. Enforces investigation before any code changes. Emergency stop after 2 failed fixes. Prevents shotgun debugging and fix cascades.