Review debt

Skill gtrabanco/agentic-workflow/skills/review-debt

Stack-agnostic agentic-programming workflow skills + documentation scaffold

Install

npx -y skills add gtrabanco/agentic-workflow --skill review-debt

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

19 stars19 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Internal tech-debt review pass of the agentic-workflow review pack — composed in-turn by review-change and product-audit; not a menu entry. Inventories shortcuts, duplication, stale abstractions and missing coverage on the changed surface, each with a re-trigger condition. Findings only; never edits code.

The file declares its own license as MIT. That is the author’s claim about this one file, and it is not the same thing as the license GitHub reports for the repository, which is listed with the other numbers below.

SKILL.md

2.5 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Review Tech Debt (internal)

Composed by review-change / product-audit within their conversation — on any agent, follow this file inline as the routed step. Findings only; never edits, never refactors.

Scope

The diff or path/glob the caller passes; default the current change vs the default branch. State the scope at the top of the returned table.

Checklist (evaluate EVERY item — none is optional; n/a must be stated)

✓ Every TODO/FIXME/HACK in the diff is inventoried (file:line + what it defers) ✓ Duplicated logic across the changed files and against existing helpers (cite both sides) ✓ Stale/orphaned abstractions the change leaves behind (a port with one adapter, a config no one reads) ✓ Dead code left by the change (replaced-but-not-removed paths) ✓ Complexity hotspots introduced (functions past ~40 lines or 3+ nesting levels — cite) ✓ Missing tests for behavior the change adds/alters (name the untested path) ✓ Workarounds that depend on external fixes (pin the upstream issue if known) ✓ Every finding carries a TRIGGER: the condition under which it must be paid (e.g. "3rd consumer appears", ">100k rows") — a debt item without a trigger is itself a finding

Return exactly

REVIEW TECH DEBT — scope: <scope>

| # | Finding | Sev | Evidence | Suggested fix |
|---|---------|-----|----------|---------------|
| 1 | <what>  | critical|major|minor | <file:line> | <smallest action> |

Checklist: <n> evaluated, <n> pass, <n> findings, <n> n/a (<which + why>)
Summary: <1-2 sentences>
Decision: PASS | FAIL

For this pass, the Suggested fix column carries the TRIGGER — the condition under which the debt must be paid — alongside the smallest action.

FAIL if any critical or major finding is open; PASS otherwise. Minor findings never block — they route to the caller's triage step.

Done when

Every checklist item was evaluated with evidence (file:line or command output) or explicitly marked n/a with the reason.
The fixed-format block above is returned — nothing more, nothing less — and no code was changed.