agentleFS
dpleshakovdpleshakov/tfscli/.claude/skills/tech-debt/SKILL.md

tech-debt

Skill1 starsChanged 34 days agoMITView on GitHub

Record and track consciously deferred problems in tech-debt.md — what qualifies as tech debt, the TD entry format, and closing entries as fixed or dropped. Use when deferring a known issue or documenting a deliberate compromise.

36 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use playtest-report, soak-test and 10 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • CoralGameSkill

    playtest-report

    Generates a structured playtest report template or analyzes existing playtest notes into a structured format. Use this to standardize playtest feedback collection and analysis.

    Also in 12 projects that use this

  • lilangMaxSkill

    soak-test

    Generate a soak test protocol for extended play sessions. Defines what to observe, measure, and log during long play sessions to surface slow leaks, fatigue effects, and edge cases that only appear after sustained play. Primarily used in Polish and Release phases.

    Also in 9 projects that use this

  • lilangMaxSkill

    team-live-ops

    Orchestrate the live-ops team for post-launch content planning: coordinates live-ops-designer, economy-designer, analytics-engineer, community-manager, writer, and narrative-director to design and plan a season, event, or live content update.

    Also in 9 projects that use this

  • CoralGameSkill

    team-polish

    Orchestrate the polish team: coordinates performance-analyst, technical-artist, sound-designer, and qa-tester to optimize, polish, and harden a feature or area for release quality.

    Also in 14 projects that use this

  • +5 more from lilangMax
  • +3 more from CoralGame

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

6 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 29 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 2

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 4

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    If the current repository contains .claude/skills/tech-debt/SKILL.md and that file is not the one you are reading, read it and follow it …

    line 13
  2. Very specific:

    Location: If tech-debt.md already exists in the repository, use that file and never create a second one.

    line 24
  3. Very specific:

    Practical test: if during a code review you would write "this is an intentional tradeoff, document it" — it goes in tech-debt.md.

    line 40
  4. Distinctive:

    When a problem is deliberately deferred — during a review, while planning or doing work, or in a discussion — add an entry under Active …

    line 80
  5. Distinctive:

    Fixed: When the entry is ready to be fixed, it becomes a regular piece of work, planned and carried out the way the project plans any …

    line 94
  6. Very specific:

    Dropped: When a review of the entry shows that no change is needed — the problem does not occur in practice, or it turns out to be a …

    line 100

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 29 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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

This skill maintains tech-debt.md, a single document that records known problems deliberately deferred, and defines how entries are added, changed, and closed. It assumes nothing about the project beyond the presence of a repository.

Project version first

If the current repository contains .claude/skills/tech-debt/SKILL.md and that file is not the one you are reading, read it and follow it instead of this file.

Where the project's own documentation (for example CONTRIBUTING.md or CLAUDE.md) sets a different convention, the project's convention wins over this skill.

tech-debt.md

tech-debt.md exists for the entire life of the project. It records known problems that have been consciously deferred — not forgotten, but deliberately not fixed yet.

Location. If tech-debt.md already exists in the repository, use that file and never create a second one. If it does not exist when the first entry is recorded, create it in the directory where the project keeps its documentation, or in docs/ (creating it) if the project has no such directory.

What goes here:

  • A known issue with an explicit decision to defer it, with reasoning
  • A compromise made consciously during a code review
  • A known problem whose fix requires design or architectural thinking first

What does not go here:

  • A bug with no decision to defer it — fix it now or plan it as regular work
  • A small cosmetic fix — either fix it immediately or ignore it
  • New work accepted for later that does not fix a problem in what exists — record it where the project keeps accepted work that has not started

Practical test: if during a code review you would write "this is an intentional tradeoff, document it" — it goes in tech-debt.md. If you would write "fix this" — fix it.

Format

# Tech debt

## Active

### TD-03 `short-name`
**Problem:** what is wrong
**Why deferred:** reasoning
**Trigger:** the event that makes the fix necessary (a new feature, a performance issue)
**Fix notes:** what is already known about the fix (optional)
**Added:** YYYY-MM-DD, in <where the decision was made>

---

## Closed

### TD-01 `short-name`
**Closed:** YYYY-MM-DD — fixed in <commit, pull request, or plan of the work>

### TD-02 `short-name`
**Closed:** YYYY-MM-DD — dropped: <why no change is needed>

Numbers (TD-NN) are assigned sequentially and never reused. The Added line names where the decision was made — a review, a plan of work, or a conversation.

Trigger names only the event that makes the fix necessary, not what to do when it occurs. What is already known about the fix — findings, constraints, and the steps worked out when the decision to defer was made — goes into Fix notes, so that it is not rediscovered later. The field may run to several paragraphs or a list, and is omitted when nothing is known yet.

Adding and changing an entry

When a problem is deliberately deferred — during a review, while planning or doing work, or in a discussion — add an entry under Active with the next free number. Before writing it, show the entry to the user. The entry goes into the same commit as the change that led to the decision, such as the review fixes, or into a commit of its own when there is no such change.

An entry is edited when a later discussion changes what is known: the problem, the reasoning, the trigger, or the fix notes. It records the current understanding, not the history of how it was reached.

Closing an entry

An entry is closed in one of two ways:

  • Fixed. When the entry is ready to be fixed, it becomes a regular piece of work, planned and carried out the way the project plans any change, with the entry's Fix notes as an input to the planning. The entry is closed in the commit that completes the fix, with fixed in and a reference to the plan of the work or the pull request; a commit is named only when the entry is closed after the fix has been committed.
  • Dropped. When a review of the entry shows that no change is needed — the problem does not occur in practice, or it turns out to be a decision rather than a deferred problem — the entry is closed with dropped: and the reason.

Either way, the entry moves to the Closed section, keeping its number and short name, and its body is replaced with the Closed line. The original reasoning remains in the repository history.

tech-debt.md is never moved or split; closed entries stay in its Closed section.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.