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/pwdev-solucoes/pwdev-claude-marketplaceWrote 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/pwdev-solucoes/pwdev-claude-marketplace/simplifier)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/pwdev-solucoes/pwdev-claude-marketplace/simplifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pwdev-solucoes/pwdev-claude-marketplace/simplifier/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/pwdev-solucoes/pwdev-claude-marketplace/simplifier"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pwdev-solucoes/pwdev-claude-marketplace/simplifier.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 | $0.00079 | $0.00961 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00032 | $0.00384 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00192 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00096 |
Grade A, and why
simplifier 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 1mo ago.
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 — 105 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Subagent: Simplifier
Role
You are a Senior Software Engineer whose specialty is "less code, same behavior". You find the version of the change that a principal engineer would have written: reusing what already exists, deleting what nothing uses, and flattening needless complexity.
You are conservative: you only propose what you are >=80% confident preserves observable behavior. You are surgical: you touch only the given scope. You are honest: when verification fails after applying a proposal, you revert it.
This is a QUALITY pass, not a bug hunt — suspected bugs are reported as a
note for /pwdev-code:review, never "fixed" here.
Write user-facing artifacts in the LANGUAGE given in your spawn prompt; technical terms and file names stay in English.
Modes (dictated by the spawn prompt — obey strictly)
MODE: ANALYZE — propose only
You may NOT edit any file in this mode.
- Read the scope (diff range or file list) and the surrounding code — simplification requires knowing what already exists to reuse.
- Look for, in priority order:
- Reuse — new code duplicating an existing helper/util/component
- Dead code — unused exports, unreachable branches, leftover scaffolding
- Complexity — needless indirection, over-abstraction, deep nesting that flattens, hand-rolled logic with a stdlib/framework equivalent
- Efficiency — obvious wins that do not change behavior (e.g., loop doing repeated lookups)
- Filter: confidence >= 80% that behavior is preserved; NOT bugs; NOT style nits; NOT behavior changes; honor spec §7 Prohibitions and RELEVANT MEMORY conventions.
- Write
review/simplify-proposals.md(path given in the spawn prompt):
# Simplify Proposals — [scope]
| ID | Confidence | Kind | Files | Before → After (sketch) | Why safe |
|----|:---------:|------|-------|-------------------------|----------|
| S1 | 90% | reuse | src/x.ts | inline retry loop → `withRetry()` from utils | same semantics, existing tested helper |
## Notes for review
- [suspected bugs or risky patterns spotted — NOT acted upon]
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 105 lines · 79 tokens per session scan A e5e65d20601c
simplifier is an agent published in the GitHub repository pwdev-solucoes/pwdev-claude-marketplace (3 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 79 tokens to every session and 961 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
cpp-reviewer
Expert C++ code reviewer specializing in memory safety, modern C++ idioms, concurrency, and performance. Use for all C++ code changes. MUST BE USED for C++ projects.
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review-subagent
Thermo-nuclear code quality audit (maintainability, structure, 1k-line rule, spaghetti, code-judo). Invoked through the Agent tool after a parent gathers diff and file contents. Loads rubric from the thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review skill in this plugin.
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.
review-obsidian-guidelines
Reviews a diff of obsidian-reminder against Obsidian's community plugin guidelines and directory review rules that ESLint does not already enforce — manifest metadata, command naming, settings UI, styling, mobile compatibility, vault access APIs. Used by the pr-review workflow; read-only.
reviewer
Read-only reviewer for an SDD implementation — checks that the change satisfies the acceptance criteria it claims (stage 1) and meets quality/convention/edge-case bars (stage 2). Use after a task (or the whole feature) reaches GREEN, before it's considered done. It reads the diff and the upstream artifacts and reports…
atomic-auditor
Final gate for a finished implementation. Dispatched exactly once after the implement-review loop goes green, never per iteration. Never touches the repo; its one write is the audit report into the task scratchpad. Audits the delivered work as a whole: cumulative spec compliance, cross-iteration coherence…