tech-debt-prioritizer（科技债务优先顺序）

Tech Debt Prioritizer

Systematically prioritize and pay down technical debt.

Scoring Rubric

Impact Score (1-10)

10 - Critical:

• Prevents new features
• Causes frequent prod incidents
• Blocks multiple teams

7-9 - High:

• Significantly slows development
• Causes occasional incidents
• Affects one team heavily

4-6 - Medium:

• Moderate development friction
• Rare incidents
• Workarounds exist

1-3 - Low:

• Minor annoyance
• No incidents
• Easy workarounds

Risk Score (1-10)

10 - Critical:

• Security vulnerability
• Data integrity issues
• Legal/compliance risk

7-9 - High:

• Potential data loss
• System instability
• Vendor end-of-life soon

4-6 - Medium:

• Performance degradation
• Occasional failures
• Deprecated but working

1-3 - Low:

• Code quality issues
• Minor bugs
• Style inconsistencies

Effort Score (1-10)

10 - Herculean:

• 3+ months
• Multiple teams
• High risk changes

7-9 - Large:

• 1-3 months
• One team
• Medium risk

4-6 - Medium:

• 1-4 weeks
• 1-2 developers
• Low risk

1-3 - Small:

• Days
• Single developer
• Very low risk

Priority Formula

Priority Score = (Impact * 2 + Risk * 1.5) / Effort

Higher score = Higher priority

Tech Debt Inventory

| ID     | Title                  | Impact | Risk | Effort | Score | Owner     |
| ------ | ---------------------- | ------ | ---- | ------ | ----- | --------- |
| TD-001 | Legacy auth system     | 9      | 10   | 8      | 3.7   | Auth Team |
| TD-002 | No database indexes    | 8      | 7    | 3      | 7.8   | Backend   |
| TD-003 | Monolithic build       | 7      | 4    | 6      | 4.0   | DevOps    |
| TD-004 | Duplicate API logic    | 6      | 3    | 4      | 4.1   | Backend   |
| TD-005 | Outdated dependencies  | 5      | 8    | 2      | 9.0   | All Teams |
| TD-006 | Missing error handling | 4      | 6    | 3      | 5.7   | Backend   |
| TD-007 | Poor test coverage     | 4      | 5    | 7      | 2.3   | All Teams |
| TD-008 | Inconsistent naming    | 3      | 2    | 5      | 1.6   | Frontend  |

**Sorted by Priority Score:**

1. TD-005: Outdated dependencies (9.0)
2. TD-002: No database indexes (7.8)
3. TD-006: Missing error handling (5.7)
4. TD-004: Duplicate API logic (4.1)
5. TD-003: Monolithic build (4.0)
   ...

Detailed Assessment Template

## TD-002: No Database Indexes

### Description

Critical queries lack indexes, causing slow response times and high CPU usage.

### Impact (8/10)

- Search queries take 2-5 seconds (should be <500ms)
- Database CPU at 85% during peak hours
- User complaints about slow searches
- Blocks performance optimization work

### Risk (7/10)

- Database may crash under load
- Losing customers to slow experience
- Cannot scale without addressing

### Effort (3/10)

- Identify missing indexes: 2 days
- Add indexes: 1 day
- Test performance: 1 day
- Deploy: 1 day
  **Total: 5 days**

### ROI Analysis

**Cost:** 5 developer-days = $5,000
**Benefit:**

- 80% faster queries
- 50% less DB CPU
- Better user experience
- Enables scaling

**ROI:** Very High

### Implementation Plan

1. Run EXPLAIN on slow queries
2. Identify missing indexes
3. Add indexes in development
4. Test query performance
5. Deploy to production (off-peak)
6. Monitor impact

### Dependencies

- None (can start immediately)

### Owner

Backend Team

### Status

Backlog → Prioritized for Q1

Quarterly Paydown Plan

# Q1 2024 Tech Debt Paydown

**Budget:** 20% of engineering time (4 weeks total)

## Week 1-2: High Priority

- TD-005: Update dependencies (2 days)
- TD-002: Add database indexes (5 days)
- TD-006: Add error handling (3 days)

## Week 3: Medium Priority

- TD-004: Eliminate duplicate logic (5 days)

## Week 4: Quick Wins

- TD-012: Fix broken tests (2 days)
- TD-015: Remove dead code (2 days)
- TD-018: Update README (1 day)

## Success Metrics

- Reduce P1 incidents by 30%
- Improve deployment confidence
- Decrease development friction
- Team morale improvement

Decision Framework

When to Pay Down Debt

Pay down NOW if:

• Security vulnerability
• Causing frequent incidents
• Blocking critical features
• High impact, low effort

Pay down SOON if:

• Slowing development significantly
• Medium-high risk
• Reasonable effort

Defer if:

• Low impact and low risk
• Very high effort
• Better alternatives exist

When to Increase Budget

**Indicators debt budget needs increase:**

- Velocity declining
- Incident rate increasing
- Developer satisfaction down
- Onboarding time increasing
- "It's too hard to..." complaints

Tech Debt Registry

interface TechDebt {
  id: string;
  title: string;
  description: string;

  // Scoring
  impact: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10;
  risk: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10;
  effort: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10;

  // Metadata
  owner: string;
  createdAt: Date;
  targetQuarter?: string;
  status: "backlog" | "prioritized" | "in-progress" | "done";

  // Context
  affectedSystems: string[];
  relatedDebt: string[];

  // Plan
  implementationPlan?: string;
  roi?: "low" | "medium" | "high" | "very-high";
}

Quarterly Review Process

1. **Collect new debt** (Week 1)

   - Team submits tech debt items
   - Engineering leads review and score

2. **Prioritize** (Week 2)

   - Calculate priority scores
   - Review high-priority items
   - Assign owners

3. **Plan quarter** (Week 3)

   - Allocate 10-20% capacity
   - Schedule work
   - Set success metrics

4. **Review results** (End of quarter)
   - Measure impact
   - Adjust process
   - Celebrate wins

Best Practices

1. Track systematically: Don't rely on memory
2. Score objectively: Use rubric consistently
3. Regular reviews: Quarterly minimum
4. Budget time: 10-20% of sprint capacity
5. Quick wins: Include easy items for morale
6. Measure impact: Track improvements
7. Make visible: Dashboard, reports
8. No judgment: Tech debt is normal

Output Checklist

• Tech debt items catalogued
• Impact/risk/effort scores assigned
• Priority scores calculated
• Items ranked by priority
• Top 10 items detailed
• Quarterly plan created
• Budget allocated (% of time)
• Owners assigned
• Success metrics defined
• Review cadence established