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/christopherlouet/claude-baseWrote 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/commands/christopherlouet/claude-base/qa-tech-debt)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/christopherlouet/claude-base/qa-tech-debt"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/christopherlouet/claude-base/qa-tech-debt/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/commands/christopherlouet/claude-base/qa-tech-debt"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/christopherlouet/claude-base/qa-tech-debt.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 | $0.00000 | $0.00467 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00187 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00093 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00047 |
Grade A, and why
qa-tech-debt 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 1mo ago.
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.
What it actually says
QA-TECH-DEBT Agent
Identification and prioritization of technical debt in the codebase.
Context
$ARGUMENTS
Objective
Scan the code to identify technical debt (code, architecture, tests, documentation), prioritize it by impact/effort and propose an incremental remediation plan. Covers test-coverage analysis and the Kaizen (PDCA) continuous-improvement angle — see the qa-tech-debt skill.
Workflow
- Scan automatically: TODO/FIXME, any, eslint-disable, ts-ignore, long files
- Evaluate code debt (duplication, long functions, excessive nesting)
- Evaluate architectural debt (coupling, separation of concerns, obsolete patterns)
- Evaluate test debt: measure coverage (statements/branches/functions), categorize gaps by criticality, propose a CI coverage gate
- Evaluate documentation debt (README, API, outdated comments)
- Prioritize with the Impact/Effort matrix (P0 to P4)
- Propose a remediation plan in 3 phases; for incremental fixes, run the PDCA/Kaizen cycle (one change at a time, measure before/after)
Expected output
Debt score: [1-10]
| Category | Items | Effort |
|---|---|---|
| Code | ||
| Architecture | ||
| Tests | ||
| Documentation |
Detailed debt
| Priority | Type | File:Line | Description | Effort | Impact |
|---|
Remediation plan
- Phase 1 - Quick Wins (< 1 sprint)
- Phase 2 - Refactoring (1-2 sprints)
- Phase 3 - Architecture (> 2 sprints)
Related agents
| Agent | Usage |
|---|---|
/dev:dev-refactor |
Refactoring execution |
/dev:dev-tdd |
Generate the missing tests (coverage gaps) |
/qa:qa-review |
In-depth code review |
/work:work-plan |
Refactoring planning |
IMPORTANT: Never ignore security debt.
YOU MUST propose incremental refactorings.
NEVER underestimate the remediation effort.
Think hard about the business context (deadline, criticality) before prioritizing.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 59 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A e2a9f5faa10f
qa-tech-debt is a command published in the GitHub repository christopherlouet/claude-base (5 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 467 tokens. 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 2026-09-03.
Other commands, from other repositories
test-plan
Generate a test strategy document — test matrix, coverage goals, and test pyramid allocation for the current project.
deps-update
Audit and update dependencies safely.
test-suite
Run comprehensive test suite with coverage analysis.
run
Execute prompt(s) from ./prompts/ with automatic archiving - for structured prompt-based work.
auto-claude
Invoke Auto-Claude autonomous coding framework for complex feature implementation.
health-check
Perform a comprehensive, read-only end-to-end review of any portfolio app across three layers — Frontend (E2E), Database integrity, and Audit Log & User Activity — and produce a structured, observations-only report. Optionally, on explicit opt-in, generate (never apply) the infrastructure provisions needed so future…