adopt
無料Brownfield audit — do existing artifacts actually work? Numbered migration plan. Unlike /project-stage-detect, checks compliance not existence.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Track, categorize and prioritize technical debt across the codebase — scans for debt indicators, maintains a register.
インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。
!bash "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config --keys automation,workflow
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).
Determine the mode from the argument:
scan — Scan the codebase for tech debt indicatorsadd — Add a new tech debt entry manuallyprioritize — Re-prioritize the existing debt registerreport — Generate a summary report of current debt statusIf no subcommand is provided, output usage and stop. Verdict: FAIL — missing required subcommand.
Search the code root (resolve per .claude/docs/code-root-resolution.md:
src/, Assets/ or Source/ by engine) for debt indicators:
TODO comments (count and categorize)FIXME comments (these are bugs disguised as debt)HACK comments (workarounds that need proper solutions)@deprecated markersCategorize each finding:
Before presenting anything, establish that there was something to scan.
Count the source files the scan actually covered. If the code root is
unresolved, report NOT ASSESSED — code root unresolved and stop as below. If
that count is zero — the code root is absent, or holds no source files — report:
NOT ASSESSED — no source files to scan. The code root 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, never overwriting it. Match before appending: a
finding with the same file and the same kind of debt as an existing Open entry
updates that entry instead of adding a duplicate. An existing Open entry whose
pattern is no longer in its file is proposed as Resolved [date] — list those and
include them in the same approval. Verdict: COMPLETE — scan findings written to register.
If no, stop here. Verdict: BLOCKED — user declined write.
Ask the user for the description and affected files (plain text prompts).
Then use AskUserQuestion to collect the category:
[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 queriesThen use AskUserQuestion to collect the estimated fix effort:
[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)Then use AskUserQuestion to collect the impact if left unfixed — the
register's Impact column, which /tech-debt prioritize scores:
[A] Low / [B] Med / [C] High / [D] CriticalPresent the complete new entry to the user.
Match before appending: if an existing Open entry already has the same
file and the same category, show it to the user and ask whether to update that
entry instead of adding a duplicate.
Ask: "May I append this entry to docs/tech-debt-register.md?" (or, on a match,
"May I update the existing entry instead?")
If yes, append the entry (or update the matched one). Verdict: COMPLETE — entry added to register.
If no, stop here. Verdict: BLOCKED — user declined write.
Read the debt register at docs/tech-debt-register.md. If it does not exist:
Verdict: NOT ASSESSED — no register at docs/tech-debt-register.md; run
/tech-debt scan first. Stop.
Score each item from its own columns: impact ÷ effort, with Impact Low 1,
Med 2, High 3, Critical 4 and Effort S 1, M 2, L 3, XL 4, rounded to
one decimal and written to Priority. Higher scores first; ties go to the older
Added date. An item whose Impact or Effort is — gets no score: list it after
the scored items as "not scored — [column] not judged" rather than guessing one.
Re-sort the register by priority score and recommend which items to include in the next sprint (at workflow: minimal, which has no sprints, which to build next).
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.
Read the debt register. If it does not exist: Verdict: NOT ASSESSED — no
register to report on; run /tech-debt scan first. Stop.
Generate summary statistics:
Added date and its Resolved [date] statusFlag 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.
/sprint-plan to schedule high-priority debt items into the next sprint (at workflow: minimal, which has no sprints, add them to the brief's build order instead)./tech-debt report at the start of each sprint to track debt trends over time.## Technical Debt Register
Last updated: [Date]
Total items: [N] | Estimated total effort: [T-shirt sizes summed]
| ID | Category | Description | Files | Effort | Impact | Priority | Status | Added | Sprint |
|----|----------|-------------|-------|--------|--------|----------|--------|-------|--------|
| TD-001 | [Cat] | [Description] | [files] | [S/M/L/XL] | [Low/Med/High/Critical] | [Score] | [Open / Resolved YYYY-MM-DD / Accepted — reason] | [YYYY-MM-DD] | [Sprint to fix or "Backlog"] |
Every skill that adds a row — this one, and /story-done when it logs
deviations as debt — writes all ten columns in this order, and a skill that
creates the file writes the header and table head above first:
TD- and three digits, one above the highest ID already in the
register (TD-001 in a new one). IDs are never reused.Architecture, Code Quality, Test, Documentation, Dependency,
Performance — the spelling /story-done writes, so Report Mode groups them once.— when the debt has no single file.S, M, L or XL, as in Add Mode; — if not yet estimated.Low, Med, High or Critical: the cost if left unfixed; —
if not yet judged./tech-debt prioritize writes; — until it runs.Open when added. Resolved YYYY-MM-DD records the day the debt
was fixed; Accepted — reason records a conscious decision to keep it.YYYY-MM-DD. Report Mode counts items
added and resolved from this date and the Resolved date.Backlog.まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。
概要と使いどころ
Brownfield audit — do existing artifacts actually work? Numbered migration plan. Unlike /project-stage-detect, checks compliance not existence.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Create an ADR documenting a technical decision: context, alternatives considered, consequences.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Traceability matrix mapping GDD requirements to ADRs. Finds gaps, cross-ADR conflicts, engine compatibility. PASS/CONCERNS/NOT ASSESSED/FAIL.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Author the Art Bible — visual identity gating asset production. Run before /map-systems.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Audit assets against naming conventions, file size budgets, format standards. Finds orphaned assets, missing references.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Per-asset visual specs plus AI generation prompts from GDDs and character profiles. After the art bible.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。