Tech debt
Self-correcting knowledge corpus for Claude Code — 9 stable shape clusters, bias-correction pipeline baked into contribution flow. 47 papers, 45 techniques, 1.1k skills.
npx -y skills add kjuhwa/skills-hub --skill tech-debtAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 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
Track, categorize, and prioritize technical debt across the codebase. Scans for debt indicators, maintains a debt register, and recommends repayment scheduling.
SKILL.md
4.6 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
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- Documentation Debt: Missing docs, outdated docs, undocumented APIs
- Dependency Debt: Outdated packages, deprecated APIs, version conflicts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
Prompt for: description, category, affected files, estimated fix effort, impact if left unfixed.
Present the 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
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
- require a valid subcommand argument
- ask permission before writing scan findings
- prompt for specific metadata when adding an entry
- ask permission before appending a new entry
- ask permission before saving reprioritized register
Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once.