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 bravew/trove --skill trove-principle-lazinessgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/bravew/troveWrote 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/bravew/trove/trove-principle-laziness)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/bravew/trove/trove-principle-laziness"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bravew/trove/trove-principle-laziness/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/bravew/trove/trove-principle-laziness"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/bravew/trove/trove-principle-laziness.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 | $0.00060 | $0.00224 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00024 | $0.00090 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00045 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00022 |
Grade A, and why
trove-principle-laziness 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
Principle: Laziness Protocol
Aim for the most result with the least code and complexity. The best change is often a deletion.
- Prefer removing code to adding it. Minimize the diff that solves the problem.
- Don't add abstractions, layers, or config for a single caller or a hypothetical future.
- Borrow a maintainer's fatigue. If tracing how an answer is produced requires jumping through more than ~3 files or layers, flatten it.
- Three similar lines beat a premature abstraction.
Prime directive: if a human maintainer would find it exhausting to hold this in their head, it's too complex — simplify before shipping.
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 First seen · 18 lines · 60 tokens per session scan A acdb4cfae3e6
trove-principle-laziness is a skill published in the GitHub repository bravew/trove (10 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 60 tokens to every session and 224 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 2026-09-11.
Other skills, from other repositories
recipe-front-review
Reviews completed frontend implementation for governing-source compliance, scope economy, repository quality, and security, then applies user-approved React corrections.
pr-description-writer
Redacta una descripción de pull request clara y estructurada a partir de un diff de git, resumen de rama o lista de commits. Úsalo cuando te pidan escribir una descripción de PR, redactar una solicitud de cambios o documentar cambios de código. Produce una descripción con resumen, motivación, cambios realizados, pasos…
output-eval-error-analysis
Systematically review workflow traces to identify failure modes before building evaluators. Use when starting an eval project, after significant pipeline changes, or when production quality drops.
rag-code-review
When performing code review on a PR, diff, snippet, or "look at this change" request, first consult the corpus for related ADRs, coding standards, prior patterns, and similar files. Grounds review comments in the team's actual decisions instead of generic best practices. Trigger on any review-style request — "review"…
idea-team
A structured group discussion for exploring a product idea through three roles: researcher, critic, and analogy finder. The roles look for evidence, weaknesses, and useful comparisons.
codex-agent
Use when you want a second-opinion review via Codex CLI, cross-verification after another agent implements changes, debugging help, or alternative implementation proposals. Requires Codex CLI to be installed and authenticated.