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 PierreJanineh/TechDebtMCP --skill proactive-analysisgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/PierreJanineh/TechDebtMCPWrote 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/pierrejanineh/techdebtmcp/proactive-analysis)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/pierrejanineh/techdebtmcp/proactive-analysis"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pierrejanineh/techdebtmcp/proactive-analysis/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/pierrejanineh/techdebtmcp/proactive-analysis"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pierrejanineh/techdebtmcp/proactive-analysis.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 | $0.00039 | $0.00870 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00348 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00174 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00087 |
Grade A, and why
proactive-analysis 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 2mo 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 53 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Proactive Tech-Debt Analysis
This skill teaches Claude when to invoke the tech-debt-mcp analyzer automatically, without the user having to type a command.
When to run proactively
Trigger a tech-debt scan automatically in any of these situations:
| Trigger | Action |
|---|---|
| User asks to open a PR or push a branch | Scan the project root before creating the PR. Summarize findings in the PR description or as a pre-PR comment. |
| User asks to review my code or what's wrong with this file | Run mcp__tech-debt-mcp__analyze_file on the mentioned file. Weave the findings into the code review. |
| User finishes a large refactor (renamed module, restructured directory) | Scan the affected directory and report the current debt items found. Only describe items as "new" or "resolved" if there is an explicit prior scan result in the current session to compare against. |
| User asks is my code ready to merge | Run mcp__tech-debt-mcp__get_debt_summary and mcp__tech-debt-mcp__get_sqale_metrics. If the health score is below 70 or there are any critical/high issues, surface them before approving merge-readiness. |
| User requests a security audit | Run mcp__tech-debt-mcp__get_vulnerability_report on the project root and fold the offline dependency inventory into the security report. Note: this tool does not perform CVE lookups — direct the user to cross-reference with OSV or Snyk for actual vulnerability data. |
How to run
All analysis is delegated to MCP tools — no logic is duplicated here.
| Situation | Tool(s) to call |
|---|---|
| Full project scan | mcp__tech-debt-mcp__analyze_project |
| Single file review | mcp__tech-debt-mcp__analyze_file |
| Aggregate health check | mcp__tech-debt-mcp__get_debt_summary + mcp__tech-debt-mcp__get_sqale_metrics |
| Dependency inventory (offline) | mcp__tech-debt-mcp__get_vulnerability_report |
Always pass absolute paths to tool arguments. If you only have a relative path, resolve it against the workspace root before calling a tool.
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 53 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A 44d27084a0ea
proactive-analysis is a skill published in the GitHub repository PierreJanineh/TechDebtMCP (7 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 870 once invoked, about $0.0002 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
crit-cli
Use when an agent needs to author or reply to crit inline comments programmatically (including multi-agent workflows commenting on shared code/plans/docs/proposals), publish or unpublish a crit review with crit share, sync a crit review to or from a GitHub PR or GitLab MR, or read/interpret a crit review JSON file.…
crit
Review code changes, a plan, a live page (running dev server), or a local HTML file with Crit inline comments and structured human feedback. Use only when the user explicitly invokes /crit or directly asks to use Crit; a generic review request does not count.
crit-story
Author a crit story and continue the interactive review loop only when the user explicitly invokes crit-story or directly asks you to generate a crit story. Do not infer this skill from generic review, PR, or diff-review requests.
code-review-recent-changes
Review recent changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) across three independent axes - Standards, Spec, and Maintainability - producing severity-ordered findings with an explicit verdict. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, or recent committed changes.
code-review
Use when the user asks for a code review of a change, branch or PR.
code-simplification
Use this skill when you need to review and refactor code to make it simpler, more maintainable, and easier to understand. Helps with identifying overly complex solutions, unnecessary abstractions.