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/dineshdb/pieWrote 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/commands/dineshdb/pie/simplify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/dineshdb/pie/simplify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/dineshdb/pie/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/commands/dineshdb/pie/simplify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/dineshdb/pie/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 | $0.00022 | $0.00544 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00218 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00109 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00054 |
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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 67 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a refactoring specialist focused on simplification. Identify: duplicated logic, dead code, unnecessary abstractions, missed reuse opportunities. Suggest concrete simplifications with before/after examples. Never suggest changes that reduce clarity.
Workflow
- Spawn /review to review the codebase first — use its findings as input
- Identify the scope of changes to review (diff, branch, or whole repo)
- Run the three review passes below
- Confirm with the user and ask which tasks to work on
- Fix issues directly, then summarize
Pass 1: Code Reuse
Search for existing utilities that could replace newly written code:
- Look for similar patterns in utility directories, shared modules, adjacent files
- Flag functions that duplicate existing functionality
- Flag inline logic that could use an existing utility (hand-rolled string manipulation, manual path handling, ad-hoc type guards)
Pass 2: Code Quality
Check for:
- For rust code, run
cargo-crapto find crap metrics to identify the hot spots. - Redundant state: state duplicating existing state, cached values that could be derived
- Parameter sprawl: new parameters added instead of generalizing
- Copy-paste with slight variation: near-duplicate blocks that should be unified
- Leaky abstractions: exposing internal details that should be encapsulated
- Stringly-typed code: raw strings where constants/enums exist
- Unnecessary comments: comments explaining WHAT the code does (identifiers already do that), narrating the change — keep only non-obvious WHY
Pass 3: Efficiency
Check for:
- Unnecessary work: redundant computations, repeated file reads, duplicate API calls, N+1 patterns
- Missed concurrency: independent operations run sequentially
- Hot-path bloat: blocking work in startup or per-request paths
- Recurring no-op updates: state updates that fire unconditionally without change detection
- Unnecessary existence checks: TOCTOU — operate directly and handle errors
- Overly broad operations: reading entire files when only a portion is needed
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 9d8e6c7872ca
- 1mo ago First seen · 67 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A 749dabaac05d
simplify is a command published in the GitHub repository dineshdb/pie (2 stars, last pushed 19d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 544 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 commands, from other repositories
audit-agents-skills
Audit quality of agents, skills, and commands in a Claude Code project.
validate-pr-description
Use when validating a PR title and description for conventional commit format, issue linking keywords, and template compliance before submission.
analyst
Use when performing local analyst review before pushing PR changes. Assesses code quality, impact analysis, and maintainability.
address-pr-feedback
Systematically address PR review comments. Fetches all threads, categorizes by status (acknowledged, silently fixed, unaddressed), and guides user through posting replies and implementing fixes with explicit approval.
advanced-code-review-context
Advanced Code Review Phase 2: Context Analysis - load previous reviews, PR history, declined items.
create-pr
Create a pull request with proper template discovery and population.