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 ckorhonen/claude-skills --skill skimmablegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ckorhonen/claude-skillsWrote 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/ckorhonen/claude-skills/skimmable)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ckorhonen/claude-skills/skimmable"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ckorhonen/claude-skills/skimmable/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/ckorhonen/claude-skills/skimmable"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ckorhonen/claude-skills/skimmable.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 | $0.00087 | $0.02306 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00035 | $0.00922 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00461 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00231 |
Grade A, and why
skimmable 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 — 404 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Skimmable
Review the change as if a tired reviewer must understand it in one fast pass.
Prefer deleting code to explaining code.
Keep the pass narrow: improve readability, state modelling, and diff clarity without changing product behaviour unless the current behaviour is obviously dead, redundant, or inconsistent with types.
Checklist
Apply these rules aggressively:
- Make the code obvious on first read.
- Reduce the number of states the code can represent.
- Reduce parameter count.
- Remove optional parameters unless they are truly required by callers.
- Replace boolean flags and loose option bags with discriminated unions when behaviour differs by mode.
- Handle every known variant exhaustively.
- Fail on unknown variants immediately.
- Trust static types inside the typed core; do not add defensive branches for impossible states.
- Assert at boundaries when loading data, parsing input, or reading external systems.
- Prefer early returns over nested conditionals.
- Keep functions cohesive; do not split logic into many tiny wrappers.
- Avoid clever helpers, indirection, and generic abstractions.
- Remove overrides, escape hatches, and customisation points unless there is a proven need.
- Remove dead paths, temporary compatibility layers, and unrelated edits.
- Bias toward fewer lines and fewer moving parts.
Working method
Follow this order:
1. Trim the diff
Remove changes that do not help the main goal of the PR.
Delete:
- incidental renames
- opportunistic refactors
- styling churn with no behavioural value
- compatibility code for callers that no longer exist
- unused helpers, types, branches, and comments
If a simplification requires a separate behavioural decision, stop and call it out instead of smuggling it into the readability pass.
2. Simplify data shape first
Reduce complexity in types before touching control flow.
Prefer:
- required fields over optional fields
- one obvious input shape over many flexible ones
- discriminated unions over booleans or loosely related fields
- named domain types over generic maps and stringly typed objects
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 · 404 lines · 87 tokens per session scan A aac9a48932e1
skimmable is a skill published in the GitHub repository ckorhonen/claude-skills (22 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 87 tokens to every session and 2,306 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
create-pull-request
Use when asked to create or update a PR, revise its description, or link issue references to its body. Not for multi-PR stacks: use gate-and-merge. Not for releases: use git-workflow-and-versioning.
gate-and-merge
Use when landing a queue of open PRs: gate each PR, sweep its review feedback to root cause, then merge, repair, hold, or close it. Human-only.
pr-review-canvas-html
Use when asked to render a GitHub PR as a standalone review HTML page. Fetches PR data via gh API, renders diffs with move detection, and serves the artifact on a local port. Not for Cursor Canvas output — use pr-review-canvas.
review-pr
Multi-agent PR review with four modes (review, re-review, self-review, address-feedback) - spawns parallel subagents, saves diff to /tmp for context efficiency, supports file exclusion patterns.
resolve-pr-feedback
Use when handling GitHub PR review feedback: autonomous fix-and-resolve, interactive per-comment walkthrough, or read-only severity summary. Not for non-GitHub feedback: use resolve.
land-contribution
Use when a maintainer or collaborator explicitly asks to review and land one external pull request. Don't use for internal pull requests or landing without preserving contributor authorship.