mcj-coder Technical Debt Prioritisation
Overview
Prioritise technical debt using evidence-based three-dimensional scoring, not gut feel. Make tradeoffs visible. Plan remediation across sprint, quarterly, and 6-month horizons.
REQUIRED: superpowers:verification-before-completion
When to Use
- Large debt backlog requiring systematic triage
- Sprint planning with competing debt items
- Stakeholder asks "what should we fix first?"
- Quarterly planning for debt remediation
- Justifying debt work to management
Detection and Deference
Before creating new debt tracking, check for existing systems:
# Check for existing debt register
ls docs/debt-register.md docs/technical-debt.md docs/tech-debt/ 2>/dev/null
# Check for debt tracking in issues
gh issue list --label "tech-debt" --state open --json number,title --jq 'length'
If existing tracking found:
- Use the existing format and location
- Don't create duplicate tracking systems
- Add to existing register rather than creating new
If no tracking found:
- Create
docs/debt-register.mdfrom template - Establish scoring convention with team
Core Workflow
- Inventory debt items (collect from backlog, code analysis, team input)
- Categorise by type (code quality, architecture, testing, etc.)
- Score each item on three dimensions with evidence
- Calculate priority using formula
- Identify quick wins (high impact, low effort)
- Create roadmap at appropriate horizon
- Document decisions with evidence and tradeoffs
See references/impact-assessment.md, references/risk-quantification.md,
and references/effort-estimation.md for scoring details.
Three-Dimensional Scoring
| Dimension | Question | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| Impact | What's the business/developer cost? | 1-5 |
| Risk | What's the probability of harm? | 1-5 |
| Effort | How much work to address? | 1-5 |
Priority Score: (Impact + Risk) / Effort
Higher score = higher priority. Quick wins: score > 4.0, effort <= 2.
Debt Categories
Code Quality, Architecture, Testing, Documentation, Infrastructure, Dependencies, Security.
Red Flags - STOP
- "This feels urgent" / "Let's just pick something"
- "Team lead knows best" / "No time for analysis"
- "There's too much to prioritise"
All mean: Apply scoring framework before deciding.
Reference Templates
Templates and scripts for debt tracking automation:
| Template | Purpose |
|---|---|
| debt-register.md | Debt register with scoring tables |
| calculate-score.sh | Calculate priority score for item |
| analyze-register.sh | Analyze register and find quick wins |
Quick Setup
# Create debt register from template
cp templates/debt-register.md.template docs/debt-register.md
# Calculate score for a debt item (impact=4, risk=3, effort=2)
./calculate-score.sh 4 3 2
# Output: Score: 3.50, Quick Win: No
# Analyze existing register
./analyze-register.sh docs/debt-register.md
CI Integration
Add to your CI pipeline to track debt over time:
# .github/workflows/debt-check.yml
- name: Check debt register
run: |
./scripts/analyze-register.sh docs/debt-register.md
# Fail if quick wins exceed threshold
QUICK_WINS=$(grep -c "Quick Win" docs/debt-register.md || echo 0)
if [ "$QUICK_WINS" -gt 5 ]; then
echo "::warning::$QUICK_WINS quick wins pending - consider addressing"
fi
Worked Scoring Example
Debt Item: "Replace hand-rolled JSON serialization with System.Text.Json"
Step 1: Score each dimension (1-5)
| Dimension | Score | Justification |
|---|---|---|
| Impact | 4 | Performance issues in logs, 3 production bugs last quarter |
| Risk | 3 | Moderate: affects multiple services, well-defined interfaces |
| Effort | 2 | Low: library swap, ~2 days work, good test coverage |
Step 2: Calculate weighted score
Score = (Impact × 0.4) + (Risk × 0.3) + ((6 - Effort) × 0.3)
Score = (4 × 0.4) + (3 × 0.3) + ((6 - 2) × 0.3)
Score = 1.6 + 0.9 + 1.2
Score = 3.7
Step 3: Classify
- Score 3.7 = High priority
- Effort 2 + Impact 4 = Quick Win candidate
Step 4: Horizon assignment
- Quick Win + High Priority → Sprint horizon (do next sprint)
Sample Debt Register
# Technical Debt Register
Last updated: 2026-01-15
Review cadence: Monthly
## Quick Wins (High Impact, Low Effort)
| ID | Item | Impact | Risk | Effort | Score | Horizon |
| ------ | ------------------------------ | ------ | ---- | ------ | ----- | ------- |
| TD-001 | Replace JSON serialization | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3.7 | Sprint |
| TD-003 | Add missing null checks in API | 3 | 4 | 1 | 3.5 | Sprint |
## Planned Remediation
| ID | Item | Impact | Risk | Effort | Score | Horizon |
| ------ | -------------------------- | ------ | ---- | ------ | ----- | ------- |
| TD-002 | Extract payment module | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3.3 | Quarter |
| TD-004 | Migrate to async handlers | 4 | 3 | 4 | 2.9 | Quarter |
| TD-005 | Consolidate duplicate DTOs | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2.6 | 6-month |
## Parking Lot (Low Priority)
| ID | Item | Impact | Risk | Effort | Score | Reason |
| ------ | ------------------------ | ------ | ---- | ------ | ----- | ------------ |
| TD-006 | Rename legacy namespace | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1.9 | Cosmetic |
| TD-007 | Remove deprecated API v1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 1.8 | No consumers |
## Summary
- **Total items**: 7
- **Quick wins pending**: 2
- **Sprint capacity allocated**: 20% for debt
- **Next review**: 2026-02-15