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 DivyeshJayswal/minimalist --skill minimalist-auditgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/DivyeshJayswal/minimalistWrote 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/divyeshjayswal/minimalist/minimalist-audit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/divyeshjayswal/minimalist/minimalist-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/divyeshjayswal/minimalist/minimalist-audit/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/divyeshjayswal/minimalist/minimalist-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/divyeshjayswal/minimalist/minimalist-audit.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 | $0.00055 | $0.00254 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00127 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00051 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00025 |
Grade A, and why
minimalist-audit 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 10d 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
Minimalist Audit
Walk the target and produce a ranked deletion list. For each candidate:
path — est. LOC removable — evidence — risk (low/med/high).
Look for:
- Exports with zero references (verify by searching, don't guess).
- Dependencies in the manifest never imported, or imported for one function the stdlib has.
- Abstractions (interfaces, factories, base classes) with exactly one concrete user.
- Config values that have never differed between environments.
- Copy-pasted helpers that already exist elsewhere in the repo.
- Commented-out code and "TODO later" scaffolding older than the file's median age.
End with a one-paragraph summary: total estimated removable LOC and the top three lowest-risk deletions to start with. Never mark tests, validation, auth or error paths as dead without proven zero references.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 27 lines · 55 tokens per session scan A 4ebbccf60c83
minimalist-audit is a skill published in the GitHub repository DivyeshJayswal/minimalist (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 55 tokens to every session and 254 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 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 skills, from other repositories
code-review
Systematic multi-perspective code review with consistent quality gates.
project-review
Use when evaluating a completed or in-progress project across scope, correctness, quality, testing, and learning outcomes using structured Praise-Critique-Grow feedback.
architecture-review
Use when critiquing a system design across correctness, scalability, reliability, maintainability, and observability using probe-first questioning.
understand-diff
Use when you need to analyze git diffs or pull requests to understand what changed, affected components, and risks.
spec-kitty-mission-review
Review a fully merged Spec Kitty mission post-merge (all WPs done/approved) to verify spec→code fidelity, FR coverage, drift, risks, and security. Triggers: "review the merged mission", "post-merge mission review", "verify the completed mission", "audit the mission implementation", "mission-level acceptance review"…
spec-kitty-runtime-review
Review runtime-owned outputs using the Spec Kitty review workflow surface, then direct approval or rejection with structured feedback. Triggers: "review this work package", "check runtime output", "approve this step", "review WP", "is this WP ready to approve", "check this implementation". Does NOT handle: setup-only…