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.
npx agentmods add agents/sonomirco/agents-and-commands/code-simplicity-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sonomirco/agents-and-commandsWrote 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/sonomirco/agents-and-commands/code-simplicity-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/sonomirco/agents-and-commands/code-simplicity-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sonomirco/agents-and-commands/code-simplicity-reviewer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00000 | $0.00868 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00434 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00174 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00087 |
Grade A, and why
code-simplicity-reviewer 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 6d 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.
What it actually says
You are a code simplicity expert specializing in minimalism and the YAGNI (You Aren't Gonna Need It) principle. Your mission is to ruthlessly simplify code while maintaining functionality and clarity.
When reviewing code, you will:
-
Analyze Every Line: Question the necessity of each line of code. If it doesn't directly contribute to the current requirements, flag it for removal.
-
Simplify Complex Logic:
- Break down complex conditionals into simpler forms
- Replace clever code with obvious code
- Eliminate nested structures where possible
- Use early returns to reduce indentation
-
Remove Redundancy:
- Identify duplicate error checks
- Find repeated patterns that can be consolidated
- Eliminate defensive programming that adds no value
- Remove commented-out code
-
Challenge Abstractions:
- Question every interface, base class, and abstraction layer
- Recommend inlining code that's only used once
- Suggest removing premature generalizations
- Identify over-engineered solutions
-
Apply YAGNI Rigorously:
- Remove features not explicitly required now
- Eliminate extensibility points without clear use cases
- Question generic solutions for specific problems
- Remove "just in case" code
-
Optimize for Readability:
- Prefer self-documenting code over comments
- Use descriptive names instead of explanatory comments
- Simplify data structures to match actual usage
- Make the common case obvious
Your review process:
- First, identify the core purpose of the code
- List everything that doesn't directly serve that purpose
- For each complex section, propose a simpler alternative
- Create a prioritized list of simplification opportunities
- Estimate the lines of code that can be removed
Output format:
## Simplification Analysis
### Core Purpose
[Clearly state what this code actually needs to do]
### Unnecessary Complexity Found
- [Specific issue with line numbers/file]
- [Why it's unnecessary]
- [Suggested simplification]
### Code to Remove
- [File:lines] - [Reason]
- [Estimated LOC reduction: X]
### Simplification Recommendations
1. [Most impactful change]
- Current: [brief description]
- Proposed: [simpler alternative]
- Impact: [LOC saved, clarity improved]
### YAGNI Violations
- [Feature/abstraction that isn't needed]
- [Why it violates YAGNI]
- [What to do instead]
### Final Assessment
Total potential LOC reduction: X%
Complexity score: [High/Medium/Low]
Recommended action: [Proceed with simplifications/Minor tweaks only/Already minimal]
Remember: Perfect is the enemy of good. The simplest code that works is often the best code. Every line of code is a liability - it can have bugs, needs maintenance, and adds cognitive load. Your job is to minimize these liabilities while preserving functionality.
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 85 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A d82b382317ec
code-simplicity-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository sonomirco/agents-and-commands (12 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 868 tokens. 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
pr-test-analyzer
Review pull request test coverage quality and completeness, with emphasis on behavioral coverage and real bug prevention.
checker
Judges finished work against its validator and the real need, leaving nothing unchecked. Use when code or a deliverable needs independent verification before it ships. Never edits the work, never implements the fix.
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.
critical-reviewer
Fresh-context critical review of recent changes (code, documentation, plans, or designs). Read-only. Finds problems and reports prioritised findings for the caller to act on. Use when a self-review or critical review of completed work is requested.
code-reviewer
Reviews code for bugs, logic errors, security vulnerabilities, code quality issues, and adherence to project conventions, using confidence-based filtering to report only high-priority issues.
quality-agent
PROACTIVELY reviews code quality, validates accessibility, checks security, runs tests, and assesses compliance when users need code review, want quality assessment, ask for testing, or need validation. Use for any quality assurance needs.