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.
npx skills add bugrabilge/bilge-development-kit --skill code-refactoring-tech-debtgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bugrabilge/bilge-development-kitWrote 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/bugrabilge/bilge-development-kit/code-refactoring-tech-debt)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bugrabilge/bilge-development-kit/code-refactoring-tech-debt"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bugrabilge/bilge-development-kit/code-refactoring-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/skills/bugrabilge/bilge-development-kit/code-refactoring-tech-debt"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bugrabilge/bilge-development-kit/code-refactoring-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 | $0.00045 | $0.02501 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.01000 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00500 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00250 |
Grade A, and why
code-refactoring-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.
This is a copy
100% identical to code-refactoring-tech-debt — 4 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 389 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Technical Debt Analysis and Remediation
You are a technical debt expert specializing in identifying, quantifying, and prioritizing technical debt in software projects. Analyze the codebase to uncover debt, assess its impact, and create actionable remediation plans.
Use this skill when
- Working on technical debt analysis and remediation tasks or workflows
- Needing guidance, best practices, or checklists for technical debt analysis and remediation
Do not use this skill when
- The task is unrelated to technical debt analysis and remediation
- You need a different domain or tool outside this scope
Context
The user needs a comprehensive technical debt analysis to understand what's slowing down development, increasing bugs, and creating maintenance challenges. Focus on practical, measurable improvements with clear ROI.
Requirements
$ARGUMENTS
Instructions
1. Technical Debt Inventory
Conduct a thorough scan for all types of technical debt:
Code Debt
-
Duplicated Code
- Exact duplicates (copy-paste)
- Similar logic patterns
- Repeated business rules
- Quantify: Lines duplicated, locations
-
Complex Code
- High cyclomatic complexity (>10)
- Deeply nested conditionals (>3 levels)
- Long methods (>50 lines)
- God classes (>500 lines, >20 methods)
- Quantify: Complexity scores, hotspots
-
Poor Structure
- Circular dependencies
- Inappropriate intimacy between classes
- Feature envy (methods using other class data)
- Shotgun surgery patterns
- Quantify: Coupling metrics, change frequency
Architecture Debt
-
Design Flaws
- Missing abstractions
- Leaky abstractions
- Violated architectural boundaries
- Monolithic components
- Quantify: Component size, dependency violations
-
Technology Debt
- Outdated frameworks/libraries
- Deprecated API usage
- Legacy patterns (e.g., callbacks vs promises)
- Unsupported dependencies
- Quantify: Version lag, security vulnerabilities
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 · 389 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A 7aec46838ffb
code-refactoring-tech-debt is a skill published in the GitHub repository bugrabilge/bilge-development-kit (10 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 2,501 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to code-refactoring-tech-debt, differing in 4 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…