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 KunanonJ/ai-skills-hub --skill codebase-cleanup-tech-debtgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/KunanonJ/ai-skills-hubWrote 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/kunanonj/ai-skills-hub/codebase-cleanup-tech-debt)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/kunanonj/ai-skills-hub/codebase-cleanup-tech-debt"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kunanonj/ai-skills-hub/codebase-cleanup-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/kunanonj/ai-skills-hub/codebase-cleanup-tech-debt"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kunanonj/ai-skills-hub/codebase-cleanup-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 | $0.00046 | $0.02573 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.01287 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00515 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00257 |
Grade A, and why
codebase-cleanup-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 9d 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
97% identical to code-refactoring-tech-debt — 10 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 — 395 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.
- 9d ago First seen · 395 lines · 46 tokens per session scan A 65695d8d0ca1
codebase-cleanup-tech-debt is a skill published in the GitHub repository KunanonJ/ai-skills-hub (5 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 46 tokens to every session and 2,573 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 97% identical to code-refactoring-tech-debt, differing in 10 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
swarm-pr-review
Run a graph-guided, tool-augmented PR review using context packing, parallel exploration, mandatory repository-agnostic risk-family coverage with dispatch scaled to diff size and risk, independent reviewer validation, critic challenge, and metrics writeback. Use for deep pull request review with low false-positive…
plankton-code-quality
Write-time code quality enforcement using Plankton — auto-formatting, linting, and Claude-powered fixes on every file edit via hooks.
critic-gate
Full execution protocol for MODE: CRITIC-GATE -- plan critic review, revision loops, and hard stop before execution.
swarm-pr-feedback
Codex adapter for closing known PR feedback in any repository. Use when asked to address pasted review feedback, GitHub review comments or threads, requested changes, CI/check failures, merge conflicts, stale PR branches, or follow-up work that must verify and close all known PR issues.
codebase-review-swarm
Codex adapter for running a rigorous, quote-grounded codebase review or security/QA/accessibility/performance/AI-slop/enhancement audit. Use for full-repo or large-subsystem review reports; not for normal implementation.
swarm-pr-review
Thin adapter for the canonical swarm-pr-review skill. The authoritative workflow lives in .opencode and this file only preserves the mirror contract for Codex-side skill discovery.