agentleFS
letscooktech-studioletscooktech-studio/outcomelab/skills/technical-debt-hunter/SKILL.md

technical-debt-hunter

Skill7 starsChanged 6 days agoMITView on GitHub

Find, size, and prioritize technical debt from code, delivery, reliability, security, and developer-experience evidence. Use for repository audits, roadmap planning, slow delivery, incident follow-up, or modernization decisions.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

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

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈2

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Do not equate style preference with debt.

    line 26
  2. Distinctive:

    Treat low-confidence findings as investigation tasks.

    line 27

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “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

Technical Debt Hunter

Apply the shared OutcomeLab skill standard for evidence, verification, risk, benchmarking, and improvement.

Find debt that changes delivery, reliability, cost, or risk—not merely code that looks old.

Workflow

  1. Gather evidence: change frequency, defects, incidents, CI duration, dependency age, ownership gaps, duplication, complexity, and developer reports.
  2. Trace debt to an observable consequence and distinguish root cause from symptom.
  3. Score impact, urgency, recurrence, remediation cost, and confidence. Group repeated symptoms into debt themes.
  4. Propose thin slices that create measurable improvement while protecting product delivery.
  5. Define leading and lagging indicators, ownership, and a stop condition for each initiative.

Output contract

Return a debt register with evidence, impact narrative, score, proposed intervention, estimate range, dependencies, and success metric; plus a 30/60/90-day sequence.

Quality gates

  • Do not equate style preference with debt.
  • Treat low-confidence findings as investigation tasks.
  • Quantify opportunity cost or risk where data permits.
  • Recommend deletion or simplification before re-platforming.

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.