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 skills add automagik-dev/genie --skill deslopgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/automagik-dev/genieWrote 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/skills/automagik-dev/genie/deslop)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/automagik-dev/genie/deslop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/automagik-dev/genie/deslop/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/skills/automagik-dev/genie/deslop"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/automagik-dev/genie/deslop.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 | $0.00043 | $0.00802 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00321 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00160 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00080 |
Grade A, and why
deslop 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 24d 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 — 55 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Deslop
Reduce the work of reading, maintaining and safely changing what is in front of you, without losing what it guarantees. Lines, sentences, files, wrappers, dependencies and tests have no target count, and a pass that changes nothing is a valid result.
Bound the scope
The subject is what the request already names: this draft, this document, this diff, the code just touched and the callers it reaches. A repository-wide sweep is separate work with its own request. Ordinary drafting and ordinary implementation include checking what you touch; neither authorizes unrelated cleanup, and neither reopens a decision the caller already made.
Name the mode in one line before the first change, and take the narrowest mode the request supports:
| Mode | You return | Done when |
|---|---|---|
| Draft or implement | The artifact | The requested scope is covered and its own checks pass |
| Cleanup | The edited artifact and what changed | Every change names a benefit, and every protected invariant still holds |
| Review | Findings, nothing edited | Every finding carries a location, the burden it imposes, and the smallest useful fix |
A request to look at something is a review. Rewriting on a review request destroys the evidence the caller asked for.
Protect before you remove
List what must survive before proposing a single removal, and keep the list where the caller can read it.
In prose, protect names, quantities, claims, citations, requirements and causal links, along with the author's stance and degree of certainty. In code, protect the requested behaviour, the existing contracts, and whatever an apparently redundant construct is there to defend.
Removing something whose purpose you cannot state is a guess wearing a diff. When the reason for a construct stays unclear after you have looked for it, the honest output is a low-confidence finding, not a deletion.
Tells are clues, never quotas
The references below name what tends to signal avoidable work. Each one is a reason to look, never a verdict. A contrast may explain a real distinction, passive voice may focus on the right subject, an adverb may qualify a claim, and an extra layer may hold a boundary. Judge the instance in front of you.
What ships with it
4 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 24d ago First seen · 55 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A 563eb705ded2
deslop is a skill published in the GitHub repository automagik-dev/genie (346 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 802 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 2026-09-22.
Other skills, from other repositories
ce-code-review
Structured code review for bugs, regressions, tests, and standards. Use before PRs or when asked for review; interactive mode can fix locally, while mode:agent reports only for pipeline callers.
first-tree-github-scan
Agent skill for handling a single GitHub notification spawned by the First Tree github-scan daemon. Use when an agent needs to decide how to tag, comment on, escalate, or hand off a PR, issue, review request, mention, or CI event, and when it needs to choose between handling on GitHub or routing to first-tree-sync /…
requesting-code-review
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements.
code-review
Performs multi-dimensional code review covering security, quality, spec compliance, and maintainability. Used when reviewing completed implementations or before merging changes.
maxsim-simplify
Reviews changed code for reuse opportunities, quality issues, and efficiency improvements, then fixes actionable items. Used after implementing features or when code feels over-engineered.
find-simplifications
Use for a periodic repo-wide sweep of qwen-code for accumulated excess surface — dead components and files, orphaned locale keys, exports nothing consumes, added-then-removed scaffolding — filing candidates on a tracking issue and landing only what a maintainer has said yes to. Repo-wide and evidence-first; every…