agentsclimarketplace

Tech debt

Skill IcodeNet/agent-skills/skills/tech-debt

40 portable full-SDLC agent skills for Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, and GitHub Copilot — deep-work autonomy, contract-guard for external interfaces, TDD, code review, PR babysitting. Install: npx github:IcodeNet/agent-skills

Install
npx -y skills add IcodeNet/agent-skills --skill tech-debt

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

2 things to look at

  • 26 days oldThe repository was created 26 days ago. New is not bad, but a brand new repository carrying a familiar-sounding name is the shape a typosquat arrives in, and there has been no time for anyone else to find a problem with it.
  • 0 stars0 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

Scans and prioritizes tech debt and code-health cleanups. Use when asking what to clean up, assessing code health, planning refactors, or prioritizing debt. Do not use for a single design decision (architecture) or for implementing a chosen deepening refactor without a scan.

SKILL.md

1.5 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Tech Debt

Surface debt, rank it, and propose small reversible cleanups — do not boil the ocean.

Related

  • Deepening opportunities with domain language → improve-codebase-architecture
  • Single design choice → architecture

Workflow

  1. Scope — directory, service, or theme (testability, duplication, coupling).
  2. Collect signals — hotspots, shallow modules, duplicated logic, missing tests, TODO/FIXME age, flaky tests, oversized files. See references/debt-signals.md.
  3. Rank — impact × frequency × risk of change. Prefer high-leverage, low-blast-radius items.
  4. Propose slices — each item: problem, proposed move, verification, estimated risk. One PR-sized slice per item when possible.
  5. Separate from features — do not mix opportunistic cleanup into unrelated ticket PRs unless required for the change.

Constraints

  • Refactors preserve behavior by default unless the goal explicitly changes behavior.
  • Prefer deleting pass-through abstractions over polishing them.
  • No speculative generality “for later”.

Verification

  • Scope stated
  • Ranked list with rationale
  • Each proposed slice has a verification plan
  • Non-goals / deferred items listed

Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most refactoring skills give

Counted across 521 of the 525 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-08-06

  • run tests after each changein 59 of 521, across 56 files
  • write tests before refactoringin 27 of 521, across 24 files
  • preserve external behaviorin 26 of 521, across 22 files
  • remove dead codein 25 of 521, across 24 files
  • make small incremental changesin 20 of 521, across 17 files
  • break the implementation into tiny commitsin 18 of 521, across 5 files
  • ask the user about alternative optionsin 17 of 521, across 4 files
  • create a GitHub issue with the planin 17 of 521, across 4 files
  • explore the repository to verify assertionsin 17 of 521, across 4 files
  • interview the user about the refactorin 16 of 521, across 3 files
  • check the codebase for test coveragein 16 of 521, across 3 files
  • refactor one thing at a timein 16 of 521, across 12 files

Said here and by no other author read

  • state the scope
  • collect debt signals
  • rank items by impact and risk
  • propose one reversible slice per item
  • state non-goals and deferred items

Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 328,083. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.