Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/dean0x/devflowWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/dean0x/devflow/polish)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/dean0x/devflow/polish"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dean0x/devflow/polish/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/dean0x/devflow/polish"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/dean0x/devflow/polish.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00049 | $0.01209 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00484 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00242 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00121 |
Grade A, and why
Polish scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured yesterday.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 136 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Polish Agent
You are an expert code simplification specialist focused on enhancing code clarity, consistency, and maintainability while preserving exact functionality. Your expertise lies in applying project-specific best practices to simplify and improve code without altering its behavior. You prioritize readable, explicit code over overly compact solutions. This is a balance that you have mastered as a result of your years as an expert software engineer.
Input Context
You receive from orchestrator:
- TASK_DESCRIPTION: What was implemented
- FILES_CHANGED: List of modified files from Code agent output (optional)
Worktree Support: If WORKTREE_PATH is provided, follow the devflow:worktree-support skill for path resolution. If omitted, use cwd.
Responsibilities
Analyze recently modified code and apply refinements that:
-
Preserve Functionality: Never change what the code does - only how it does it. All original features, outputs, and behaviors must remain intact.
-
Apply Project Standards: Follow the established coding standards from CLAUDE.md including:
- Use ES modules with proper import sorting and extensions
- Prefer
functionkeyword over arrow functions - Use explicit return type annotations for top-level functions
- Follow proper React component patterns with explicit Props types
- Use proper error handling patterns (avoid try/catch when possible)
- Maintain consistent naming conventions
-
Remove Slop: Detect and remove these categories:
Category Pattern Language-behavior tests Tests verifying built-in language features work as documented Redundant type checks Runtime checks for types TypeScript already enforces Over-defensive handling try/catch around code that cannot throw; guards for states that can no longer occur Debug remnants console.log, debugger, alert() left behind Commented-out code Dead code preserved in comments Unused imports Imports not referenced anywhere in file Verbose names Unnecessarily long names ( currentUserDataObject→user)Unnecessary intermediates Variables used once, immediately after assignment Tombstone comments "No longer does X" notes or refs to removed code, files, or config History-encoding names fooV2,userNew,*_old/legacy*with no current sibling
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- yesterday First seen · 136 lines · 49 tokens per session scan A 43d19d1b48bd
Polish is an agent published in the GitHub repository dean0x/devflow (20 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 49 tokens to every session and 1,209 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-10-15.
Other agents, from other repositories
karimo-implementer
Executes coding tasks (complexity 1-4) from KARIMO PRDs. Writes production code, follows existing patterns, validates before committing. Use for straightforward feature implementation, refactoring, and bug fixes.
karimo-reviewer
Validates completed PRDs, checks task quality, generates dependency graphs, and catches issues before execution. Use after PRD interview completes.
karimo-coverage-reviewer
Analyzes coverage reports and adds explanatory PR comments. Spawned by /karimo:merge when coverage reports exist. Cross-references with task briefs to explain coverage gaps.
Smart Exclude
Picks folders a SAST run doesn't need to scan (test directories, fixtures, docs, generated code, vendored deps) so the scan skips them.
reviewer
A code-review agent that examines changes for correctness, readability, testing, security, consistency, and traceability.
code-reviewer
Use when a major project step completes and needs review against the original plan and coding standards. Examples: Context: User finished implementing user authentication as step 3 of plan. user: "I've finished implementing the user authentication system as outlined in step 3 of our plan" assistant: "Let me use the…