CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

tech-debt

Identify, categorize, and prioritize technical debt. Trigger with "tech debt", "technical debt audit", "what should we refactor", "code health", or when the user asks about code quality, refactoring priorities, or maintenance backlog.

Quality

87%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

86%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A tight, well-structured instruction-only skill: an efficient categories table, a concrete scoring formula, and a clear output contract, with no padding. The main gap is that the identify step — how to actually find debt items in a codebase — is left entirely implicit.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The ~30-line body is lean and entirely prescriptive: a compact taxonomy table, a scoring formula, and an output contract. Nothing explains concepts Claude already knows and nothing could be trimmed, matching the lean/efficient anchor.

5 / 5

Actionability

Provides an executable prioritization formula ("Priority = (Impact + Risk) x (6 - Effort)" with 1-5 scales) and a concrete output specification (prioritized list, effort estimates, business justification, phased remediation plan). Falls short of 5 because the identification step lacks any method for surveying a codebase for debt items.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Section order (categorize via table, score via framework, produce output) gives a clear implicit sequence with unambiguous instructions at each stage, and no validation checkpoints are needed for read-only analysis. Not 5 because the workflow is implied by section order rather than explicitly sequenced, and the identification step is underspecified.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines, self-contained with no external references needed, and organized into clear sections (Categories, Prioritization Framework, Output). Per the rubric guideline for short simple skills, well-organized sections alone warrant the top score.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

83%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A strong description with a clear third-person capability statement, explicit trigger clause, and natural keyword coverage. It clearly communicates both what the skill does and when to invoke it, with only minor gaps in synonym coverage and slight overlap risk with adjacent code-review skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Identify, categorize, and prioritize technical debt" names three concrete actions in a specific domain, matching the anchor for several specific actions with minor gaps. It falls short of 5 because it omits deliverables the body covers (remediation plan, effort estimates), and exceeds 3 because it lists more than 1-2 actions.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ("Identify, categorize, and prioritize technical debt") and when ("Trigger with... or when the user asks about code quality, refactoring priorities, or maintenance backlog") with concrete trigger phrases, matching the top anchor exactly.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural terms and question phrasing users would actually say ("tech debt", "what should we refactor", "code health", "maintenance backlog"), matching good keyword coverage with a few natural terms missing. Not 5 because common synonyms like "legacy code" or "code smells" are absent.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The technical-debt niche is clear with mostly distinct triggers, but "what should we refactor" and "code quality" could plausibly match a general code-review or refactoring skill, giving minor overlap risk. Not 5 due to that overlap; not 3 since the core triggers (tech debt, technical debt audit) are unmistakably this skill's.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins

Path

engineering/skills/tech-debt/SKILL.md

Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.