Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to xsovad06/sova. 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/xsovad06/sova/main/.claude/commands/simplify.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/xsovad06/sovaWrote 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/xsovad06/sova/simplify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/xsovad06/sova/simplify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/xsovad06/sova/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/xsovad06/sova/simplify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/xsovad06/sova/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 | $0.00020 | $0.00652 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00261 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00130 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00065 |
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 9d 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 — 78 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Simplify
Review all changed code for opportunities to reduce complexity, eliminate duplication, and improve quality.
Scope: $ARGUMENTS
Instructions
Step 1: Get the Diff Scope
Compare against the fork point with the remote base (three dots), not a local main: two dots against a stale or moved base also lists the base's own newer commits as if this branch made them.
BASE=$(git symbolic-ref --short refs/remotes/origin/HEAD 2>/dev/null | sed 's#^origin/##')
BASE=${BASE:-main}
git fetch --quiet origin "$BASE"
git diff "origin/$BASE"...HEAD --stat
git diff --cached --stat
git diff --stat
Step 2: Review Each Changed File
For each changed file, read the entire file and check:
- Code reuse: does new code duplicate existing utilities or helpers? Search the codebase for similar patterns.
- Over-engineering: unnecessary abstractions, premature generalization, excessive configurability for one-time operations.
- Dead code: unused imports, unreachable branches, commented-out code.
- Redundancy: repeated logic that could be a shared helper (only if 3+ occurrences).
- Complexity: can any function be simplified without losing clarity?
- Efficiency: redundant computations, repeated file reads, duplicate API calls.
- Naming: unclear variable or function names that could be more descriptive.
Step 3: Apply Simplifications
Apply each simplification directly. After changes, verify tests still pass, skipping only when an identical check already passed earlier in this autonomous pipeline cycle for this exact worktree state (a no-op outside the autonomous pipeline: sova checks should-skip only ever reports a skip there). Here that can only happen when no simplification was applied, since any edit changes the state the skip is keyed to:
if sova checks should-skip "make check"; then
echo "Full check already passed for this worktree state earlier in the pipeline cycle; skipping re-run."
else
make check && { sova checks record "make check" --passed || true; }
fi
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.
- 9d ago Changed · +4 lines 1604a0e463ce
- 14d ago Changed · +5 lines a88ff193ce65
- 16d ago Changed 46df4559199e
- 1mo ago Changed e2a36b55e86c
- 1mo ago Changed · +1 lines 93abd4c6e456
- 2mo ago First seen · 68 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A e926ba452e1b
simplify is a command published in the GitHub repository xsovad06/sova (2 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 652 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
greptile-review
Execute the full Greptile review cycle on a PR, looping until score meets threshold or circuit breaker triggers.
review-branch
Review the current branch's diff against base by dispatching atomic-reviewer. No orchestration loop, no spec required — pre-flight before /commit pr or /commit merge.
advanced-code-review-context
Advanced Code Review Phase 2: Context Analysis - load previous reviews, PR history, declined items.
code-review-give
Give mode for code-review: Review someone else's code with multi-pass analysis and structured recommendations.
mach12:issue-review
Read a GitHub issue and all comments, review the implementation plan, and present findings.
review-design-verify
Phases 4-5 of reviewing-design-docs: Interface Verification + Implementation Simulation.