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 tranhieutt/software_development_department --skill tech-debtgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tranhieutt/software_development_departmentWrote 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/tranhieutt/software_development_department/tech-debt)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tranhieutt/software_development_department/tech-debt"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tranhieutt/software_development_department/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/tranhieutt/software_development_department/tech-debt"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tranhieutt/software_development_department/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 | $0.00052 | $0.01262 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00631 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00252 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00126 |
Grade A, and why
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 8d 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 — 110 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
When this skill is invoked:
-
Parse the subcommand from the argument:
scan— Scan the codebase for tech debt indicatorsadd— Add a new tech debt entry manuallyprioritize— Re-prioritize the existing debt registerreport— Generate a summary report of current debt status
-
For
scan:- Search the codebase for debt indicators:
TODOcomments (count and categorize)FIXMEcomments (these are bugs disguised as debt)HACKcomments (workarounds that need proper solutions)@deprecatedmarkers- Duplicated code blocks (similar patterns in multiple files)
- Files over 500 lines (potential god objects)
- Functions over 50 lines (potential complexity)
- Shallow wrappers or pass-through abstractions that fail the deletion test
- Categorize each finding:
- Architecture Debt: Wrong abstractions, missing patterns, coupling issues, shallow wrappers, failed deletion-test seams
- Code Quality Debt: Duplication, complexity, naming, missing types
- Test Debt: Missing tests, flaky tests, untested edge cases
- Documentation Debt: Missing docs, outdated docs, undocumented APIs
- Dependency Debt: Outdated packages, deprecated APIs, version conflicts
- Performance Debt: Known slow paths, unoptimized queries, memory issues
- Update the debt register at
docs/tech-debt-register.md
For shallow-wrapper findings, apply this test before filing debt:
- If deleting the abstraction would mostly simplify the code and would not force multiple callers to re-learn meaningful behavior, log it as Architecture Debt.
- If deleting it would re-spread invariants, branching, retries, validation, or ordering logic across callers, it is probably earning its keep; do not file debt just because it is small.
Record shallow-wrapper debt explicitly in the description, for example:
- "Pass-through adapter around
OrderRepositoryfails deletion test" - "Thin mapper module mirrors caller complexity without adding leverage"
- Search the codebase for debt indicators:
-
For
add:- Prompt for: description, category, affected files, estimated fix effort, impact if left unfixed
- Append to the debt register
-
For
prioritize:- Read the debt register
- Score each item by:
(impact_if_unfixed * frequency_of_encounter) / fix_effort - Re-sort the register by priority score
- Recommend which items to include in the next sprint
-
For
report:- Read the debt register
- Generate summary statistics:
- Total items by category
- Total estimated fix effort
- Items added vs resolved since last report
- Trending direction (growing / stable / shrinking)
- Flag any items that have been in the register for more than 3 sprints
- Output the report
Debt Register Format
## Technical Debt Register
Last updated: [Date]
Total items: [N] | Estimated total effort: [T-shirt sizes summed]
| ID | Category | Description | Files | Effort | Impact | Priority | Added | Sprint |
|----|----------|-------------|-------|--------|--------|----------|-------|--------|
| TD-001 | [Cat] | [Description] | [files] | [S/M/L/XL] | [Low/Med/High/Critical] | [Score] | [Date] | [Sprint to fix or "Backlog"] |
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 110 lines · 52 tokens per session scan A 64af4d09968b
tech-debt is a skill published in the GitHub repository tranhieutt/software_development_department (72 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 52 tokens to every session and 1,262 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
review
Plan-aware graph-enhanced code review before merge. CRITICAL issues block merge. Use after fix/verify.
flutter-dart-code-review
Library-agnostic Flutter/Dart code review checklist covering widget best practices, state management patterns (BLoC, Riverpod, Provider, GetX, MobX, Signals), Dart idioms, performance, accessibility, security, and clean architecture.
verify-code-review
A code-review workflow that sends a change to several independent reviewers at the same time. The reviewers work in separate contexts and return their findings to the main review.
verify-multispec
A verification workflow for major releases or large code refactors. It uses four specialist teammates to review the change, question each other’s findings, and then shut down cleanly.
verify-paranoid
A conditional review workflow for critical modules before a pull request, which is a proposed code change awaiting review. It uses a strict senior-engineer review for important code and skips ordinary modules.
verify-second-opinion
A workflow for getting a second AI review when changes affect the rules and tools that coordinate other workflows.