tech-debt
Skill1 starsChanged 59 days agoMITView on GitHub
Track, categorize, and prioritize technical debt across the codebase. Scans for debt indicators, maintains a debt register, and recommends repayment scheduling.
38 other projects use a version of this, 13 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- pantheon-org/tekhnetheir own version, first seen Nov 15, 2026
- Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studiosedited, first seen Nov 9, 2026
- nisarth/claude-skills-storetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- dirien/yet-another-agent-harnesstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- y-miyazaki/configtheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- striderZA/OpenCodeGameStudiosedited, first seen Nov 4, 2026
Other versions38 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- HunLuanZhiZhu/Game-Studios-Plugin★ 1100% same
Edited · 13
- Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios★ 39k38% same
- pixel-cellar/Claude-Code-Game-Studios★ 32411% same
- striderZA/OpenCodeGameStudios★ 12496% same
- tranhieutt/software_development_department★ 7143% same
- CoralGame/Claude-Code-Game-Studios★ 1982% same
- dawn840705/codex-code-studios★ 1796% same
- lilangMax/ClaudeCodeGameStudios★ 896% same
- hongyuanc/codex-game-studios★ 587% same
- SebastianLuser/claude-code-arcane★ 284% same
- dawn840705/claude-code-studios★ 180% same
3 more not listed
Wrote their own version · 24
- anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins★ 36ksame name
- vm0-ai/vm0★ 1.2ksame name
- cenconq25/claude-code-app-studio★ 40same name
- drafthq/draft★ 40same name
- fagemx/edda★ 36same name
- dirien/yet-another-agent-harness★ 19same name
- pantheon-org/tekhne★ 10same name
- CodePhobiia/claude-roblox-game-studio★ 9same name
- gonimar/claude-web-studio★ 4same name
- Pradnyeshp/Claude-Skills★ 2same name
14 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository157 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CCGS Skill Testing Framework/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- design/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- docs/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- prototypes/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- src/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- tests/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CCGS Skill Testing Framework/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- design/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- docs/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- src/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- studio-adoptSkill
- studio-architecture-decisionSkill
- studio-architecture-reviewSkill
- studio-art-bibleSkill
- studio-asset-auditSkill
- studio-asset-specSkill
- studio-balance-checkSkill
- studio-brainstormSkill
- studio-bug-reportSkill
- studio-bug-triageSkill
- studio-changelogSkill
- studio-code-reviewSkill
- studio-consistency-checkSkill
- studio-content-auditSkill
- studio-create-architectureSkill
- studio-create-control-manifestSkill
- studio-create-epicsSkill
- studio-create-storiesSkill
- studio-day-one-patchSkill
- studio-design-reviewSkill
- studio-design-systemSkill
- studio-dev-storySkill
- studio-estimateSkill
- studio-gate-checkSkill
- studio-helpSkill
- studio-hotfixSkill
- studio-launch-checklistSkill
- studio-localizeSkill
- studio-map-systemsSkill
- studio-milestone-reviewSkill
- studio-onboardSkill
- studio-patch-notesSkill
- studio-perf-profileSkill
- studio-playtest-reportSkill
- studio-project-stage-detectSkill
- studio-propagate-design-changeSkill
- studio-prototypeSkill
- studio-qa-planSkill
- studio-quick-designSkill
- studio-regression-suiteSkill
- studio-release-checklistSkill
- studio-retrospectiveSkill
- studio-reverse-documentSkill
- studio-review-all-gddsSkill
- studio-scope-checkSkill
- studio-security-auditSkill
- studio-setup-engineSkill
- studio-skill-improveSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
15 rules. 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 6 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 30 edited versions we read keep these.
9
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
6
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 19
If no subcommand is provided, output usage and stop.
- Distinctive: line 25
Search the codebase for debt indicators:
- Very specific: line 46
Ask: "May I write these findings to docs/tech-debt-register.md?"
- Distinctive: line 48
If yes, update the register (append new entries, do not overwrite existing ones).
- Distinctive: line 50
If no, stop here. Verdict: BLOCKED — user declined write.
- Distinctive: line 56
Ask the user for the description, affected files, and impact if left unfixed (plain text prompts).
- Very specific: line 78
Ask: "May I append this entry to docs/tech-debt-register.md?"
- Distinctive: line 80
If yes, append the entry. Verdict: COMPLETE — entry added to register.
- Very specific: line 88
Read the debt register at docs/tech-debt-register.md.
- Very specific: line 96
Ask: "May I write the re-prioritized register back to docs/tech-debt-register.md?"
- Distinctive: line 98
If yes, write the updated file.
- Distinctive: line 106
Read the debt register. Generate summary statistics:
- Very specific: line 121
Run /sprint-plan to schedule high-priority debt items into the next sprint.
- Very specific: line 122
Run /tech-debt report at the start of each sprint to track debt trends over time.
- Distinctive: line 138
Every debt entry must explain WHY it was accepted (deadline, prototype, missing info)
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 30 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Phase 1: Parse Subcommand
Determine the mode from the argument:
scan— Scan the codebase for tech debt indicatorsadd— Add a new tech debt entry manuallyprioritize— Re-prioritize the existing debt registerreport— Generate a summary report of current debt status
If no subcommand is provided, output usage and stop. Verdict: FAIL — missing required subcommand.
Phase 2A: Scan Mode
Search the codebase for debt indicators:
TODOcomments (count and categorize)FIXMEcomments (these are bugs disguised as debt)HACKcomments (workarounds that need proper solutions)@deprecatedmarkers- Duplicated code blocks (similar patterns in multiple files)
- Files over 500 lines (potential god objects)
- Functions over 50 lines (potential complexity)
Categorize each finding:
- Architecture Debt: Wrong abstractions, missing patterns, coupling issues
- Code Quality Debt: Duplication, complexity, naming, missing types
- Test Debt: Missing tests, flaky tests, untested edge cases
- Documentation Debt: Missing docs, outdated docs, undocumented APIs
- Dependency Debt: Outdated packages, deprecated APIs, version conflicts
- Performance Debt: Known slow paths, unoptimized queries, memory issues
Present the findings to the user.
Ask: "May I write these findings to docs/tech-debt-register.md?"
If yes, update the register (append new entries, do not overwrite existing ones). Verdict: COMPLETE — scan findings written to register.
If no, stop here. Verdict: BLOCKED — user declined write.
Phase 2B: Add Mode
Ask the user for the description, affected files, and impact if left unfixed (plain text prompts).
Then use AskUserQuestion to collect the category:
- Prompt: "What category does this tech debt belong to?"
- Options:
[A] Architecture Debt — wrong abstractions, missing patterns, coupling issues[B] Code Quality Debt — duplication, complexity, naming, missing types[C] Test Debt — missing tests, flaky tests, untested edge cases[D] Documentation Debt — missing/outdated docs, undocumented APIs[E] Dependency Debt — outdated packages, deprecated APIs, version conflicts[F] Performance Debt — known slow paths, memory issues, unoptimized queries
Then use AskUserQuestion to collect the estimated fix effort:
- Prompt: "What is the estimated effort to fix this item?"
- Options:
[A] S — Small (under 1 day)[B] M — Medium (1–3 days)[C] L — Large (3–7 days)[D] XL — Extra Large (over 1 week)
Present the complete new entry to the user.
Ask: "May I append this entry to docs/tech-debt-register.md?"
If yes, append the entry. Verdict: COMPLETE — entry added to register.
If no, stop here. Verdict: BLOCKED — user declined write.
Phase 2C: Prioritize Mode
Read the debt register at docs/tech-debt-register.md.
Score each item by: (impact_if_unfixed × frequency_of_encounter) / fix_effort
Re-sort the register by priority score and recommend which items to include in the next sprint.
Present the re-prioritized register to the user.
Ask: "May I write the re-prioritized register back to docs/tech-debt-register.md?"
If yes, write the updated file. Verdict: COMPLETE — register re-prioritized and saved.
If no, stop here. Verdict: BLOCKED — user declined write.
Phase 2D: Report Mode
Read the debt register. Generate summary statistics:
- Total items by category
- Total estimated fix effort
- Items added vs resolved since last report
- Trending direction (growing / stable / shrinking)
Flag any items that have been in the register for more than 3 sprints.
Output the report to the user. This mode is read-only — no files are written. Verdict: COMPLETE — debt report generated.
Phase 3: Next Steps
- Run
/sprint-planto schedule high-priority debt items into the next sprint. - Run
/tech-debt reportat the start of each sprint to track debt trends over time.
Debt Register Format
## Technical Debt Register
Last updated: [Date]
Total items: [N] | Estimated total effort: [T-shirt sizes summed]
| ID | Category | Description | Files | Effort | Impact | Priority | Added | Sprint |
|----|----------|-------------|-------|--------|--------|----------|-------|--------|
| TD-001 | [Cat] | [Description] | [files] | [S/M/L/XL] | [Low/Med/High/Critical] | [Score] | [Date] | [Sprint to fix or "Backlog"] |Rules
- Tech debt is not inherently bad — it is a tool. The register tracks conscious decisions.
- Every debt entry must explain WHY it was accepted (deadline, prototype, missing info)
- "Scan" should run at least once per sprint to catch new debt
- Items older than 3 sprints without action should either be fixed or consciously accepted with a documented reason
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

