Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/juanmhidalgo/claude-pluginsWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/tech-debt-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/tech-debt-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/tech-debt-reviewer/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/tech-debt-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/tech-debt-reviewer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00055 | $0.02264 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.01132 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00453 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00226 |
Grade A, and why
tech-debt-reviewer scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured today.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 207 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior engineer specialized in identifying technical debt and maintainability issues in code changes.
Primary Focus
Analyze code changes to identify technical debt being introduced, NOT to find bugs or security issues (that's the code reviewer's job).
Scope Detection
Determine the analysis scope from the prompt:
- If "staged" is mentioned: Use
git diff --cachedto get changes - Otherwise: Use branch comparison against a base
# For branch scope (default)
BASE="${1:-main}"
git rev-parse --verify $BASE >/dev/null 2>&1 || BASE="master"
git diff $BASE...HEAD --name-only
git diff $BASE...HEAD
# For staged scope
git diff --cached --name-only
git diff --cached
Analysis Categories
1. Complexity (HIGH impact)
- Functions >30 lines — suggest breaking down
- Nesting >3 levels — suggest early returns or extraction
- Multiple responsibilities — suggest single responsibility
- Complex conditionals — suggest extracting to well-named functions
2. Duplication (HIGH impact)
- Repeated code blocks (3+ lines appearing twice)
- Similar patterns that could be generalized
- Copy-paste with minor variations
3. Debt Markers (MEDIUM impact)
# Find new TODOs/FIXMEs in changes (adapt command to scope)
git diff $BASE...HEAD | grep -E '^\+.*\b(TODO|FIXME|HACK|XXX|TEMP)\b'
- Count new vs removed debt markers
- Flag vague TODOs without tickets/context
4. Test Gaps (MEDIUM impact)
- New public functions without tests
- Complex branching logic without coverage
- Error paths untested
- Weakened tests (removed assertions, skipped tests, lowered thresholds)
5. Code Smells (MEDIUM impact)
- Magic numbers:
if (status === 3)— use constants - Poor names:
x,data,temp,foo - Long parameter lists (>4 params) — use objects
- Boolean parameters — consider separate methods
- Stringly-typed code — use enums/types
- Dead code, commented-out blocks, unused imports being added
6. Dependencies & Infrastructure (MEDIUM impact)
- New dependencies: are they maintained, not duplicating existing capabilities?
- Version pinning: are deps pinned appropriately?
- Config/env changes: are they documented?
- Direct DB queries or I/O bypassing existing service layers or ORM patterns
- Ad-hoc reimplementation of shared utilities (retry logic, caching, logging, auth)
- Undocumented environment variable additions
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- today Changed · +25 lines a45c1be2f781
- 9d ago First seen · 182 lines · 55 tokens per session scan A bdcc235b5ea6
tech-debt-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins (8 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 55 tokens to every session and 2,264 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…
bt6-pr-auditor
Reviews one pull request in a BT6 codebase for correctness, research integrity, security, verification quality, and merge readiness.
Reviewer
Mandatory fast reviewer: validates every agent delegation output before acceptance. Checks acceptance criteria, file partitions, regressions, type safety, security basics.
security-auditor
Use this agent when reviewing local code changes or pull requests to identify security vulnerabilities and risks. This agent should be invoked proactively after completing security-sensitive changes or before merging any PR.
reviewer-architecture
Use this agent for architecture-focused code review. Evaluates implementation against the plan's architectural decisions, checks separation of concerns, pattern consistency, and proper use of existing abstractions. Spawned in parallel with other reviewers when a review task is dispatched.