CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

tech-debt

Maintain docs/TECH_DEBT.md, the living list of code-level cleanup that isn't a risk, a shortcut, or an open decision (that's the risk-register skill's job) and isn't a future feature (that's ROADMAP.md's job). Use when a lint/format/style violation slips past an existing gate, a small known cleanup is noticed while working on something else, or a filed item is fixed and needs removing. DO NOT use for anything with a real cost or risk if left unaddressed (use risk-register instead), for aislop baseline findings (already lifecycle-managed in .aislop/baseline.json), or for anything confidential. Triggers: 'add to tech debt', 'log this as cleanup', 'track this lint violation', 'mark tech-debt item #N fixed', 'what's on the tech debt list'.

70

Quality

86%

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

77%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 well-structured, highly actionable instruction-only skill: workflows are sequenced with explicit validation and feedback loops, and bundle content is appropriately split with verified one-level-deep references. The main weakness is token efficiency — the central design rationales (Rules 1 and 3) are restated across many sections, which inflates the body without adding new guidance.

Suggestions

State the no-append-only/deletion-is-resolution rationale once (Rule 1 or the Mindset section) and have later sections reference 'Rule 1' in a phrase instead of re-deriving it — the intro, Prerequisites, Anti-Patterns, and Scripts sections each repeat it.

Consolidate the Rule 3 due-diligence check: it is fully spelled out in Rules, both Workflow subsections, two Anti-Patterns, and Troubleshooting; a single canonical statement plus short pointers would cut substantial tokens.

Fold the repeated 2026-07-31 governance-audit citations (Workflow, Mindset, Anti-Patterns) into one place, e.g. the kill-criterion paragraph, and reference it from the others.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense with project-specific signal and explains nothing Claude already knows, but the no-append-only/deletion-is-resolution rationale is restated in the intro, Rule 1, Prerequisites, Mindset, Anti-Patterns, and the Scripts section, and Rule 3 recurs across four sections. Mostly efficient but could be meaningfully tightened by consolidating those repetitions; more than the 'minor instances' of anchor 4, short of the generic-explanation padding of anchor 2.

3 / 5

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance throughout: 'Read the current last row's # ... + 1', 'Run scripts/validate-tech-debt-schema.sh before committing', field specs like 'Since as YYYY-MM-DD, Status starting Open', and a runnable troubleshooting table. Minor gap: the Effort enum values and a worked row example are not inline, so drafting a row requires opening the template/reference first — mostly executable with minor gaps rather than fully copy-paste ready.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Both workflows are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints: the add workflow opens with a Rule 3 due-diligence check and includes an early validation step to avoid a bounced commit, and the resolve workflow guards the irreversible deletion with a confirm-then-promote-to-risk-register branch. The Troubleshooting table supplies validate->fix->retry feedback loops for pre-commit failures, satisfying the destructive-operation validation requirement.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Clear overview with well-signaled, one-level-deep references: the area taxonomy and full row schema are offloaded to references/area-taxonomy-and-row-schema.md (a real file that itself contains no nested references), row shape lives in assets/templates and assets/schemas, and a References table with a 'When to Use' column aids navigation. All bundle paths cited in the body were verified to exist.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

95%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.

An exemplary description: third-person, dense with signal, explicit about what, when, and when-not, with concrete natural trigger phrases and explicit disambiguation from the risk-register skill, ROADMAP.md, and aislop. The only soft spot is that 'maintain' as the primary verb leaves the row-level mechanics implicit, a minor coverage gap.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

'Maintain docs/TECH_DEBT.md, the living list of code-level cleanup' plus 'a filed item is fixed and needs removing' names the domain and the add/remove actions concretely. Not 5: the governing verb 'maintain' is generic and row-level mechanics (schema, validation, deletion-as-resolution) are absent; clearly above 3, which allows only 1-2 concrete actions.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ('Maintain docs/TECH_DEBT.md, the living list of code-level cleanup that isn't a risk... or a future feature') and when ('Use when a lint/format/style violation slips past an existing gate... or a filed item is fixed and needs removing') with concrete trigger phrases. The 'when' clauses are specific rather than generic, matching the anchor-5 example's structure.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

The explicit Triggers list — 'add to tech debt', 'log this as cleanup', 'track this lint violation', 'mark tech-debt item #N fixed', 'what's on the tech debt list' — comprehensively covers the natural phrases a user would say, including resolution and query variants. Anchor 5 fits; anchor 4 ('a few natural terms missing') would understate the coverage.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description draws explicit boundaries against every neighboring surface: "isn't a risk... (that's the risk-register skill's job) and isn't a future feature (that's ROADMAP.md's job)" plus 'DO NOT use for... aislop baseline findings... or for anything confidential'. A clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 6 deeper-than-1-level

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
pantheon-org/tekhne
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.