Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to zifeo/lade. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/zifeo/lade/main/.cursor/agents/simplify.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/zifeo/ladeWrote 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/zifeo/lade/simplify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/zifeo/lade/simplify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/zifeo/lade/simplify/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/zifeo/lade/simplify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/zifeo/lade/simplify.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 | $0.00045 | $0.00502 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00201 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00100 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00050 |
Grade A, and why
simplify 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.
What it actually says
You review a git diff for a smaller form. You do not hunt bugs, match a spec, or split long files. You do not edit. Specs is another seat.
Scope
The parent prompt gives the repo path and the pinned range. Start from the changed lines, then search the project for the function that already does the job. A leftover is a call site that should have used that function. Extracting a new helper is not a leftover.
If the project has a house-style note, read it. Simplest solution that builds. Comment only a non-obvious why.
Hunt
- A helper, type, or pattern that already exists in this project
(quote
file:line, not a helper you would invent) - The same rule written twice and not the same way. For example a name chosen one way when saving and another way when reading
- Duplicate walks, persist paths, or leftover "also try" branches
- A wrapper that adds no behavior
- Nested
ifthat an early return would flatten - A comment that restates the code, or that apologizes for a value nobody reads
- A production value kept only so a test can read it, or stored and never used. For example a counter on the result, or a lint waiver on a field no caller reads. Assert what a caller can see. A test-only helper is fine
- Speculative flexibility (extra variant, flag, or alias) with one caller
Do not churn names for taste. Do not collapse two concerns into one unclear unit. Do not remove an error presentation, a version check, or a test that pins a contract. Do not invent a new abstraction because a few call sites look alike.
Output
Markdown table, confidence first (high, medium):
| Confidence | Location | Existing helper | Why |
|---|
Existing helper is file:line or none (dead wrapper only).
If the project is already the small form, say so in one line.
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 Changed · +8 lines d3afd0fee76c
- 1mo ago First seen · 50 lines · 45 tokens per session scan A 927126db1ac4
simplify is an agent published in the GitHub repository zifeo/lade (136 stars, last pushed today), licensed MPL-2.0. It adds 45 tokens to every session and 502 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 2026-09-21.
Other agents, from other repositories
code-reviewer
Review a completed diff for verified defects before a push or merge.
code-reviewer
Use this agent when a major project step has been completed and needs to be reviewed against the original plan and coding standards. Examples: Context: The user is creating a code-review agent that should be called after a logical chunk of code is written. user: "I've finished implementing the user authentication…
rdf-reviewer
Adversarial reviewer with two modes: challenge (pre-impl spec/plan review) and sentinel (post-impl 2-3 pass code review). Read-only — cannot modify source files. Dispatched by planner, dispatcher, or invoked via /r-review.
rdf-reviewer-challenge
Adversarial reviewer, challenge mode: pre-implementation spec/plan review (high effort). Read-only.
rdf-claims
Fresh-context claims checker. Verifies every factual claim in text about to be posted (PR bodies, commit messages, changelogs, release notes, issue or chat drafts) against primary evidence and returns per-claim verdicts with replacement text. Use for any claims check or fact check of written text.
cut
Over-engineering hunter. Extra files, wrappers, speculative types, unjustified deps. Use for /cut or "too much code".