codebase-cleanup-tech-debt

tessl i github:sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills --skill codebase-cleanup-tech-debt

You are a technical debt expert specializing in identifying, quantifying, and prioritizing technical debt in software projects. Analyze the codebase to uncover debt, assess its impact, and create acti

42%

Overall

Validation — 81%

Implementation — 27%

Activation — 33%

SKILL.md

Review

Evals

Activation

33%

The description establishes a clear domain focus on technical debt analysis but suffers from being truncated and lacking explicit trigger guidance. It uses second-person voice ('You are') which violates the third-person requirement, and provides no 'Use when...' clause to help Claude know when to select this skill over others.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause with trigger terms like 'technical debt', 'code quality assessment', 'refactoring priorities', 'legacy code analysis'

Rewrite in third person voice (e.g., 'Identifies, quantifies, and prioritizes technical debt in software projects') instead of 'You are'

Complete the truncated description and add specific deliverables (e.g., 'generates debt inventory reports, estimates remediation effort, recommends prioritized cleanup tasks')

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (technical debt) and lists some actions (identifying, quantifying, prioritizing, analyze, assess, create), but uses somewhat abstract language like 'uncover debt' and 'assess its impact' rather than concrete specific actions.	2 / 3
Completeness	Describes what it does (analyze codebase for technical debt) but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. The description also appears truncated ('create acti').	1 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes relevant terms like 'technical debt', 'codebase', 'prioritizing', but misses common variations users might say such as 'code quality', 'refactoring', 'legacy code', 'code smell', or 'cleanup'.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The focus on 'technical debt' provides some distinctiveness, but terms like 'analyze the codebase' and 'software projects' are generic enough to potentially overlap with code review or code analysis skills.	2 / 3
	Total	7 / 12 Passed

Implementation

27%

This skill is a comprehensive but overly verbose tutorial on technical debt analysis rather than a lean, actionable guide. It explains many concepts Claude already understands and provides generic templates instead of executable, project-specific guidance. The content would benefit significantly from aggressive trimming and splitting into focused reference documents.

Suggestions

Reduce content by 70%+ by removing explanations of basic concepts (what technical debt is, what cyclomatic complexity means) and keeping only project-specific actionable commands

Split detailed templates (metrics dashboard, cost calculations, implementation patterns) into separate reference files and link to them from a concise overview

Replace illustrative pseudocode with actual executable commands or scripts that can analyze a real codebase (e.g., specific linter commands, actual SonarQube queries)

Add explicit validation checkpoints like 'Verify debt inventory completeness by running X' and 'Confirm impact calculations with stakeholder before proceeding to remediation planning'

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Extremely verbose at ~400 lines with extensive explanations Claude already knows (what technical debt is, basic refactoring patterns, standard metrics). The skill explains concepts like cyclomatic complexity, code duplication, and testing debt in tutorial fashion rather than providing actionable guidance.	1 / 3
Actionability	Contains some concrete examples (Python code snippets, YAML configs, cost calculations) but much is pseudocode or illustrative rather than executable. The examples are generic templates rather than copy-paste ready commands for actual codebase analysis.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Steps are numbered and sequenced (1-8 sections), but lacks explicit validation checkpoints. No feedback loops for verifying debt analysis accuracy or confirming remediation success before proceeding. The workflow is more of a checklist than a guided process with error recovery.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Monolithic wall of text with no references to external files. All content is inline including detailed examples, metrics templates, and implementation strategies that could be split into separate reference documents (e.g., METRICS.md, REFACTORING_PATTERNS.md).	1 / 3
	Total	6 / 12 Passed

Validation

81%

Warnings & errors only

Criteria	Description	Result
description_trigger_hint	Description may be missing an explicit 'when to use' trigger hint (e.g., 'Use when...')	Warning
metadata_version	'metadata' field is not a dictionary	Warning
license_field	'license' field is missing	Warning

	Total	13 / 16 Passed

Reviewed

19 days ago

Table of Contents

Activation Implementation Validation

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.