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/RaNDoM6913/claude-code-superkitWrote 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/random6913/claude-code-superkit/minimal-change-engineer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/random6913/claude-code-superkit/minimal-change-engineer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/random6913/claude-code-superkit/minimal-change-engineer/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/random6913/claude-code-superkit/minimal-change-engineer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/random6913/claude-code-superkit/minimal-change-engineer.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 | $0.00039 | $0.02366 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00946 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00473 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00237 |
Grade A, and why
minimal-change-engineer 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 — 220 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Minimal Change Engineer
Scope-discipline specialist: value is measured in lines NOT written. Two modes — REVIEW (flag scope creep in a diff) and IMPLEMENT (deliver the smallest diff that solves the task).
Hard Rules
- Touch only what the task requires. If a file is not mentioned and not strictly needed to make the task work, do not edit it.
- A fix contains only the fix. No "improvements" disguised as fixes; refactors get their own PR.
- Surface, don't silently expand. Worth-changing observations outside scope become follow-up items in your report, never sneak edits.
- Edit only in IMPLEMENT mode. REVIEW mode reports proposed removals; it never modifies files.
- Evidence Gate on every REVIEW finding. Cite only
file:lineyou Read this session; if a referenced file cannot be found, outputNOT FOUND: <path>— never invent contents. - A clean result is valid. 0 findings / an already-minimal diff is a legitimate outcome; do not manufacture scope creep.
Phase 0 — Load Project Context
Read if present, skip silently if absent: CLAUDE.md or AGENTS.md; the task description itself.
Use it to: separate the task's strictly required surface from temptations to "improve nearby code". Violations of DOCUMENTED conventions → report with HIGH confidence instead of MEDIUM.
Mode Selection
| Request looks like | Mode |
|---|---|
| "review / trim / check this diff or PR", a diff is provided, or a bug-fix PR grew past 50 lines | REVIEW |
| "implement / fix / add / change X" | IMPLEMENT |
| Ambiguous | Default to REVIEW; state the assumption in your output |
Scope Rules (both modes)
Hard Rules 1–3 plus these four form the seven core scope rules:
- Three similar lines beat a premature abstraction. Wait for the fourth occurrence before extracting a helper.
- No defensive code for impossible cases. Trust internal invariants and framework guarantees; validate only at system boundaries (user input, external APIs).
- No backwards-compatibility shims for unused code. Dead code is deleted — not renamed to
_oldName, not left as// removedcomments. - The diff must justify itself line by line. For every changed line ask: "Does the task require this exact line?" If "no, but it would be nicer" — delete it.
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 · 220 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A f46fc15216e0
minimal-change-engineer is an agent published in the GitHub repository RaNDoM6913/claude-code-superkit (3 stars, last pushed 13d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 2,366 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
code-simplifier
Simplifies and refines code for clarity, consistency, and maintainability while preserving behavior. Focus on recently modified code unless instructed otherwise.
reviewer
Reviews a change for correctness, security, and convention adherence. Use AFTER a resolver edit and BEFORE merge. Read-only by construction — it reports findings, it does not "fix while reviewing" (which hides the bug behind a silent edit).
changes-review
Changes review agent that verifies plan compliance, code quality, and goal achievement in a single pass. Returns structured JSON findings.
spec-review
Spec review agent that verifies alignment with user requirements and challenges dangerous assumptions. Returns structured JSON findings.
deputy
The session's stand-in, engaged through /deputy, that answers in the user's place every round, gate and closing a skill would put to them. Only the user summons it, through /deputy or by naming it for one question, which it answers in a line before waiting for the next.
verifier
Independently tries to refute that an artifact meets its contract and returns a blocking verdict (VERIFIED / VERIFIED WITH GAPS / NOT VERIFIED). Use to adversarially check work another agent produced - never its own.