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 DDS-Solutions/AI-TadPole-OS --skill simplify-codegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/DDS-Solutions/AI-TadPole-OSWrote 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/dds-solutions/ai-tadpole-os/simplify-code)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/dds-solutions/ai-tadpole-os/simplify-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dds-solutions/ai-tadpole-os/simplify-code/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/dds-solutions/ai-tadpole-os/simplify-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dds-solutions/ai-tadpole-os/simplify-code.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 | $0.00032 | $0.01005 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00402 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00201 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00101 |
Grade A, and why
simplify-code 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 12d 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.
This is a copy
91% identical to simplify-code — 156 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 81 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
[!IMPORTANT] AI Context & Knowledge Heritage
- Subsystem: Agent Skills Registry / simplify-code
- Architecture:
@docs ARCHITECTURE:Documentation- Failure Path: Introducing behavioral regressions during refactoring, breaking existing invariant tests, or premature abstraction.
- Observability: Traceability via
execution/parity_guard.py([SKILL])
Simplify Code — Reduce Unnecessary Complexity
Philosophy: Complexity is an ongoing tax. Every unused abstraction, redundant wrapper, and deeply nested block increases cognitive load and hides bugs. Simplify ruthlessly while proving 100% behavioral parity.
Workflow Bindings: Integrated into/refactorand/anneal.
🎯 Progressive Disclosure & L3 Reference Index
Read the core Sovereign rules below; consult deep L3 Reference Guides on demand:
| L3 Reference Guide | Purpose | Trigger / When to Load |
|---|---|---|
references/complexity_metrics_and_refactoring.md |
Cyclomatic complexity limits, nesting thresholds, and pass-through wrapper elimination | Refactoring complex functions or removing indirection |
scripts/complexity_analyzer.py |
Automated static analyzer detecting deep nesting ($\ge 4$ levels) and oversized functions | Auditing source files before and after refactoring |
🧭 1. The Simplification Rubric
1. Unnecessary Abstractions
- Pass-through Wrappers: If a class or wrapper function simply delegates to an inner module without transformation, remove it.
- Single-Implementation Interfaces: Merge interfaces with only one implementing class.
- Premature Factories: If a factory only instantiates one concrete class, use the constructor directly.
What ships with it
2 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.
- 12d ago Changed · -57 lines c3456fd711a5
- 1mo ago First seen · 138 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 97abc32866a0
simplify-code is a skill published in the GitHub repository DDS-Solutions/AI-TadPole-OS (8 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 1,005 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 91% identical to simplify-code, differing in 156 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
isolating-product-facade-contracts
Plan and execute product isolation migrations to a facade plus contract layer in PostHog, following the Visual review architecture. Use when a product still exposes internals (models/logic/views) across boundaries and needs migration toward contracts.py + facade/api.py + presentation separation, with a PR strategy…
qa-frontend
Internal PostHog developer frontend/browser QA skill. Use only when a PostHog developer explicitly asks to run frontend QA, browser-test a PR, verify a UI flow against the local PostHog stack, use qa-frontend, or QA current frontend changes with browser/runtime evidence, or to make a feature reel (see reel mode…
walkeros-understanding-development
Use when contributing to walkerOS, before writing code, or when unsure about project conventions. Covers build/test/lint workflow, XP principles, folder structure, and package usage.
reviewing-personhog-protocol
The full review process for personhog coordination-protocol changes — leases, fencing, handoffs, supervisors, failure budgets, warming, and changelog semantics. Use before pushing or requesting review on any personhog protocol changeset, when asked for an exhaustive or careful review of personhog code, and after any…
splitting-oversized-modules
Split an oversized Python module (a thousand-plus-line logic.py, models.py, api.py, or its test file) into a package of one module per concern, mechanically and provably without changing behavior. Use on a request to split / break up / decompose a god module or move functions out of one, once a human has agreed to…
establishing-code-ownership
Determine which PostHog team owns a file, directory, or code path, or enumerate all code a team owns (via distributed owners.yaml, products//product.yaml, and .github/CODEOWNERS). Use when assigning a reviewer, attributing a bug or slow query to a team, routing work, scoping a team-wide audit, or answering "who owns…