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-reviewgit 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-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/divyeshjayswal/minimalist/minimalist-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/divyeshjayswal/minimalist/minimalist-review/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-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/divyeshjayswal/minimalist/minimalist-review.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 | $0.00067 | $0.00285 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00034 | $0.00143 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00057 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00028 |
Grade A, and why
minimalist-review 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 11d 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 Review
Review the given code or diff through one lens: what can be removed while staying fully correct and safe?
For each finding output one line: file:line — cut/keep — why (≤15 words).
Then a verdict: the estimated LOC floor for this change and the top 3 cuts.
Check, in order:
- Scope that no requirement asked for (YAGNI violations).
- New code duplicating an existing helper/util/pattern in this repo.
- New dependencies replaceable by stdlib/platform/installed deps.
- Abstractions with a single caller/implementation.
- Symptom patches where a root-cause fix is smaller.
- Drive-by refactors, renames, reformatting outside the ticket.
Never flag as bloat: validation, auth, error handling on fallible ops, resource cleanup, tests. If the diff lacks those, flag that instead — missing guards outrank extra lines.
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 30 lines · 67 tokens per session scan A 6322bb7ff74c
minimalist-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository DivyeshJayswal/minimalist (2 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 67 tokens to every session and 285 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.
architecture-review
Use when critiquing a system design across correctness, scalability, reliability, maintainability, and observability using probe-first questioning.
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.
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…