Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add bcanfield/agentic-tech-debt/plugin install debt-opsWrote 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/skills/bcanfield/agentic-tech-debt/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bcanfield/agentic-tech-debt/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bcanfield/agentic-tech-debt/review/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/skills/bcanfield/agentic-tech-debt/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bcanfield/agentic-tech-debt/review.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 | $0.00070 | $0.00985 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00028 | $0.00394 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00197 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00098 |
Grade A, and why
review 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- debt-ops-review — 86% identical, 72 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 60 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/debt-ops:review — audit + (on follow-up) walk paydown
Two modes. First turn: print the audit and stop. On a user follow-up ("fix the top one," "walk these," "do A," "pay some down"), apply the rubric below.
First turn: print the audit
python3 ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/review/scripts/review.py
Optional: --top N to surface more than the default 3 candidates.
Re-emit the helper's stdout verbatim in a fenced code block. Claude Code collapses long bash outputs behind a +N lines, ctrl+o to expand placeholder — if you don't print it yourself, the user never sees it. Copy exactly: no preamble, no summary, no "want me to fix the top one?" The fenced block preserves column alignment.
Then stop. The user picks the next move.
Paydown mode (only on user follow-up)
Work through requested entries one at a time. Confirm before each fix. Never auto-batch. Never auto-commit.
For each entry, read the registry file, the hotspot, and adjacent tests. Apply this rubric:
- Already fixed? If the marker/symptom the entry describes no longer appears in the hotspot file, say so and add the entry's letter to the drop list. Don't re-fix.
- Cold area? Churn=0 since
created:and age >90d → propose deferring. ~20% of files generate ~80% of debt-related rework; don't pay down vanity refactors. - Prudent-deliberate with payoff_trigger not met? Honor the trigger. Skip with a one-line "trigger not met: ."
- Fix candidate? Propose the smallest change that resolves the entry. Improvement, not perfection — don't refactor surrounding code.
When you fix
- Read the repo first. Check the test framework, adjacent tests, the cached feedback commands. Adapt to what exists; don't impose a new style.
- TDD where tests exist. Write a failing test that pins the deferral, then make it pass. Don't weaken or delete existing tests to make a fix pass.
- No tests in this area? Surface that and ask: write one, or fix without?
- Explain why this resolves the entry. Cite the entry's
payoff_triggeror body — don't commit code you can't explain. - Risky fix? Auth, payments, migrations, public APIs, or
ai_authored: true→ invoke/code-reviewon the diff before suggesting commit. Fresh-context review catches what the writer's motivated reasoning misses. - Don't commit. Show the diff. The user runs the gates, drops the entry with
drop A, and commits.
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 · 60 lines · 70 tokens per session scan A 6787ed3cab86
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository bcanfield/agentic-tech-debt (8 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 70 tokens to every session and 985 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 skills, from other repositories
mutation-test
Mutation testing with two engines. Uses the project's NATIVE mutation runner (StrykerJS / Infection / mutmut / PIT / cargo-mutants) when one is configured — installing it on explicit consent when it is not — for a reproducible, comparable score; and an LLM-guided engine for the mutation classes native mutators cannot…
review
Structured code review with parallel audit agents, confidence-scored triage, and optional auto-fix. Examines uncommitted changes, staged diffs, commit ranges, or specific paths. Produces a tiered report (MUST-FIX / RECOMMENDED / NIT) backed by evidence, then optionally applies fixes with verification.
write-tests
Write tests for existing production code. Processes ONE file at a time through a full pipeline: analyze, inventory (frozen BEFORE writing), write, executable coverage gate, verify, blind coverage audit, adversarial review, log. Uses CodeSift for discovery and analysis when available. Modes: [path] (specific target)…
db-audit
Database performance and safety audit. 70+ checks across 13 dimensions (DB1-DB13): query patterns, indexes, schema design, connections, transactions, migrations, caching, query optimization, ORM anti-patterns, observability, data lifecycle, DB security, and migration deployment safety. Code-level checks for all ORMs.…
code-audit
Batch audit of production files against CQ1-CQ40 quality gates and CAP1-CAP29 anti-patterns. Tiered output (A/B/C/D), critical gate enforcement, evidence-backed scoring, cross-file pattern analysis, and prioritized execution plan. Flags: zuvo:code-audit all | [path] | [file] | --deep | --quick | --services |…
brainstorm
Explores a codebase, researches the problem space, and produces an approved design specification before any code is written. Use when the user wants to create a new feature, add significant functionality, redesign a subsystem, or build something that touches multiple parts of the project.