CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

tech-debt-radar

Proactive architectural review skill using Frontier Model semantic RAG to sweep historical issues and Memory Core sessions for technical debt. Triggers: Use this skill when conducting architectural analysis, proactively searching for technical debt, auditing the repository for abandoned logical loops, when explicitly requested to scan for ambient architectural debt, or during PR review for fundamental architectural shifts.

64

Quality

76%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.agents/skills/tech-debt-radar/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

85%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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

The body is a model of progressive disclosure and conciseness: a lean overview pointing to a single, clearly-signaled, one-level-deep reference file. Its only weakness is actionability, since it delegates all substantive guidance to the reference rather than including even a minimal in-body example or command.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is a single lean sentence that assumes Claude's competence and contains no padding or explanation of known concepts, matching the anchor-3 'lean and efficient; every token earns its place' example.

3 / 3

Actionability

It gives one concrete executable instruction ('use the `view_file` tool to read and strictly adhere to ...tech-debt-radar-guide.md'), but all substantive action is offloaded to the reference with no in-body code, commands, or examples, so it is incomplete rather than copy-paste ready.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

This is a simple single-action skill whose one step—read the guide before proceeding—is unambiguous and explicitly sequenced, so per the simple-skills scoring note workflow clarity scores 3.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a concise overview with a clearly-signaled, one-level-deep reference to references/tech-debt-radar-guide.md (a verified real file), with no nested skill-reference indirection, matching the anchor-3 'clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references' example.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Description

67%Weight 40%Scale 1-3

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

The description clearly covers both capability and explicit multi-scenario triggers, but its impact is dampened by jargon ('Frontier Model semantic RAG', 'Memory Core sessions', 'ambient architectural debt') that weakens both specificity and trigger-term naturalness. Tightening to plain, concrete verbs and user-natural phrases would lift the weaker dimensions.

Suggestions

Replace jargon scaffolding ('Frontier Model semantic RAG', 'Memory Core sessions') with plain concrete verbs so the listed actions read like anchor-3 examples ('extract text, fill forms, merge documents').

Soften or drop unnatural trigger phrases ('ambient architectural debt', 'abandoned logical loops') in favor of terms users actually say, e.g. 'find technical debt', 'review architecture for decay', 'spot dead code paths'.

Narrow the broad 'architectural analysis' and 'PR review' triggers to the debt-specific framing (e.g. 'during PR review when the change reshapes fundamental architecture') to reduce conflict with general review skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain and several actions ('sweep historical issues', 'architectural review', 'auditing the repository', 'scan for ambient architectural debt') but wraps them in jargon like 'Frontier Model semantic RAG' and 'Memory Core sessions' rather than crisp concrete verbs, so it falls short of the fully-concrete anchor-3 level.

2 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers both 'what' (architectural review skill sweeping historical issues and Memory Core sessions for technical debt) and 'when' via a clear 'Triggers: Use this skill when...' clause listing multiple scenarios, matching the anchor-3 example.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural phrases a user might say ('searching for technical debt', 'architectural analysis', 'PR review'), but these are diluted by jargon-heavy triggers ('ambient architectural debt', 'abandoned logical loops', 'fundamental architectural shifts') that users would not naturally utter, missing common variations.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The debt-specific niche is distinctive, but broad triggers like 'architectural analysis' and 'PR review for fundamental architectural shifts' create real overlap risk with general code-review skills, so it is not a clear, conflict-free niche.

2 / 3

Total

9

/

12

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
neomjs/neo
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.