Files
Claude-Code-Game-Studios/.claude/skills/tech-debt/SKILL.md
T
DonchitosandClaude Opus 5 d05699707f Release 1.1.0 — one config file, and a process weight you choose
`project.yaml` at the repo root is now the single source of truth for a
project's configuration, replacing `production/stage.txt`,
`production/review-mode.txt` and `.claude/docs/technical-preferences.md` (all
three still read as a fallback; nothing is force-deleted).

**`modes.rigor` — one question instead of six.** `minimal`, `standard` or
`full` fronts six knobs: `modes.workflow`, `docs.density`, `qa.level`,
`modes.story_granularity`, `modes.review_mode` and `team.size`. It defaults to
`minimal`, which is a change from 1.0's behaviour: the heavier tier was
measured costing several times more to reach working code without producing a
better result, and returning nothing when a fresh developer inherited the
project. Pin `modes.rigor: standard` to keep 1.0's process level.

Also in this release:

- `/settings` to view or change any setting, and `project.local.yaml` for
  per-developer preferences that should not be committed.
- `system_overrides` to hold one system to a higher standard than the rest of
  the project, and `testing.strict` to set per test type whether missing
  evidence blocks a story or warns.
- A story that changes anything the player sees is not closed until the game
  has been launched, observed, and a screenshot retained in
  `production/qa/evidence/`. A parse check is not a run. This holds at every
  rigor level, including `minimal`, where automated tests are waived but the
  look is not.
- The code root is engine-specific and enforced as such: Godot `src/`, Unity
  `Assets/`, Unreal `Source/<Module>/`. Two of the three will not build a
  project laid out any other way.
- Migration tooling for existing projects: `.claude/scripts/migrate-v1-config.sh`
  converts a 1.0 layout, non-destructively by default, with a report to review
  before `--finalize` deletes anything.
- Ask-before-write holds regardless of personal automation settings.

Upgrading from 1.0 or earlier: see UPGRADING.md. Full list of changes:
CHANGELOG.md.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016xvzG3i7pWQg4LjyDwWMXd
2026-09-23 12:25:11 +10:00

165 lines
6.2 KiB
Markdown
Raw Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters
This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.
---
name: tech-debt
description: "Track, categorize and prioritize technical debt across the codebase — scans for debt indicators, maintains a register."
argument-hint: "[scan|add|prioritize|report]"
user-invocable: true
allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Write, AskUserQuestion
model: sonnet
---
!`source "${CLAUDE_PROJECT_DIR:-.}/.claude/hooks/yaml-helper.sh" 2>/dev/null && resolve_config --keys automation`
Every `AskUserQuestion` call follows `.claude/docs/automation-modes.md`
(collaborative asks always · guided major-only · autonomous logs and proceeds;
`automation_always_ask` categories always prompt).
## Phase 1: Parse Subcommand
Determine the mode from the argument:
- `scan` — Scan the codebase for tech debt indicators
- `add` — Add a new tech debt entry manually
- `prioritize` — Re-prioritize the existing debt register
- `report` — Generate a summary report of current debt status
If no subcommand is provided, output usage and stop. Verdict: **FAIL** — missing required subcommand.
---
## Phase 2A: Scan Mode
Search the codebase for debt indicators:
- `TODO` comments (count and categorize)
- `FIXME` comments (these are bugs disguised as debt)
- `HACK` comments (workarounds that need proper solutions)
- `@deprecated` markers
- Duplicated code blocks (similar patterns in multiple files)
- Files over 500 lines (potential god objects)
- Functions over 50 lines (potential complexity)
Categorize each finding:
- **Architecture Debt**: Wrong abstractions, missing patterns, coupling issues
- **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
**Before presenting anything, establish that there was something to scan.**
Count the source files the scan actually covered. If that count is **zero** —
no `src/` directory, or it holds no source files — report:
> **NOT ASSESSED — no source files to scan.** `src/` contains no code, so
> "no debt indicators found" would be a statement about an empty search, not
> about the codebase. Run this once implementation is under way.
and stop. Do not write to the register and do not emit a COMPLETE verdict.
The distinction is the whole point of the scan: **zero findings over 400 files
is a clean codebase; zero findings over zero files is no information at all.**
Rendering both as "COMPLETE — scan findings written to register" reads as the
first. State the denominator whenever findings are reported,
including when it is large and the count is genuinely zero.
Present the findings to the user.
Ask: "May I write these findings to `docs/tech-debt-register.md`?"
If yes, update the register (append new entries, do not overwrite existing ones). Verdict: **COMPLETE** — scan findings written to register.
If no, stop here. Verdict: **BLOCKED** — user declined write.
---
## Phase 2B: Add Mode
Ask the user for the description, affected files, and impact if left unfixed (plain text prompts).
Then use `AskUserQuestion` to collect the **category**:
- Prompt: "What category does this tech debt belong to?"
- Options:
- `[A] Architecture Debt — wrong abstractions, missing patterns, coupling issues`
- `[B] Code Quality Debt — duplication, complexity, naming, missing types`
- `[C] Test Debt — missing tests, flaky tests, untested edge cases`
- `[D] Documentation Debt — missing/outdated docs, undocumented APIs`
- `[E] Dependency Debt — outdated packages, deprecated APIs, version conflicts`
- `[F] Performance Debt — known slow paths, memory issues, unoptimized queries`
Then use `AskUserQuestion` to collect the **estimated fix effort**:
- Prompt: "What is the estimated effort to fix this item?"
- Options:
- `[A] S — Small (under 1 day)`
- `[B] M — Medium (1–3 days)`
- `[C] L — Large (3–7 days)`
- `[D] XL — Extra Large (over 1 week)`
Present the complete new entry to the user.
Ask: "May I append this entry to `docs/tech-debt-register.md`?"
If yes, append the entry. Verdict: **COMPLETE** — entry added to register.
If no, stop here. Verdict: **BLOCKED** — user declined write.
---
## Phase 2C: Prioritize Mode
Read the debt register at `docs/tech-debt-register.md`.
Score each item by: `(impact_if_unfixed × frequency_of_encounter) / fix_effort`
Re-sort the register by priority score and recommend which items to include in the next sprint.
Present the re-prioritized register to the user.
Ask: "May I write the re-prioritized register back to `docs/tech-debt-register.md`?"
If yes, write the updated file. Verdict: **COMPLETE** — register re-prioritized and saved.
If no, stop here. Verdict: **BLOCKED** — user declined write.
---
## Phase 2D: Report Mode
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 to the user. This mode is read-only — no files are written. Verdict: **COMPLETE** — debt report generated.
---
## Phase 3: Next Steps
- Run `/sprint-plan` to schedule high-priority debt items into the next sprint.
- Run `/tech-debt report` at the start of each sprint to track debt trends over time.
### Debt Register Format
```markdown
## 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"] |
```
### Rules
- Tech debt is not inherently bad — it is a tool. The register tracks conscious decisions.
- Every debt entry must explain WHY it was accepted (deadline, prototype, missing info)
- "Scan" should run at least once per sprint to catch new debt
- Items older than 3 sprints without action should either be fixed or consciously accepted with a documented reason