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 epicsagas/epic-harness --skill simplifygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/epicsagas/epic-harnessWrote 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/epicsagas/epic-harness/simplify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/epicsagas/epic-harness/simplify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/epicsagas/epic-harness/simplify/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/epicsagas/epic-harness/simplify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/epicsagas/epic-harness/simplify.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 | $0.00026 | $0.00762 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00305 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00152 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00076 |
Grade A, and why
simplify 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 — 77 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Simplify — Code Simplification
When to Trigger
- File exceeds 500 lines
- Function exceeds 40 lines or nesting exceeds 3 levels of control flow
- Repeated copy-paste blocks (same shape, 2+ sites)
- "This is getting hard to follow" feeling
Process
1. Measure
- Line count, function count, nesting depth
- Identify the longest/most complex function
Why: You cannot improve what you cannot quantify. Baseline metrics prove simplification actually happened and prevent subjective "it feels cleaner" claims.
2. Extract
- Extract function: Turn a code block into a named function
- Extract constant: Replace magic numbers/strings
- Extract module: Split large files by responsibility
Why: Named abstractions replace "what does this block do?" with "what does this function promise?" — reducing cognitive load per reading unit.
3. Rename
- Variables: describe what it holds, not how it's computed
- Functions: describe what it does, not how
- Files: match the primary export/class
Why: Precise names eliminate the need for comments and make wrong code look wrong. A reader should understand intent from names alone.
4. Reduce
- Remove dead code (unused imports, unreachable branches)
- Replace imperative loops with declarative (map, filter, reduce)
- Merge duplicate logic into shared utility
Why: Every line of code is a line someone must read, understand, and maintain. Fewer lines with the same behavior means lower lifetime cost.
5. Verify
- All tests still pass after simplification
- No behavior changes — only structural improvements
Why: Simplification that breaks behavior is not simplification — it is a regression. Tests are the safety net that makes structural changes safe.
Constraints
- One simplification at a time — verify between each
- Never simplify and add features in the same change
Anti-Rationalization
| Excuse | Rebuttal | What to do instead |
|---|---|---|
| "We might need this later" | YAGNI. Code you don't need is code you maintain for free. Add it when you need it. | Delete it. When the need arises, write it with current context — not stale assumptions. |
| "This abstraction makes it more flexible" | Flexibility without a concrete use case is complexity. Simple code is flexible code. | Abstract only after you see the second use case. Two concrete examples beat one imagined future. |
| "It's already working, don't touch it" | Chesterton's Fence: understand why it exists first. But if it's needlessly complex, simplify it. | Understand it, write tests for it, then simplify it. Working code that nobody can read is a ticking bomb. |
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 Changed · -1 lines · -6 tokens per session 8ebf46449a61
- 1mo ago First seen · 78 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A dc612e213e2d
simplify is a skill published in the GitHub repository epicsagas/epic-harness (19 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 26 tokens to every session and 762 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
hypotheses
Turns a research direction into testable hypotheses with predictions, competing explanations and the experiments that discriminate between them, including the design (controls, randomization, blocking), sample size or seed count, the pre-specified analysis, and the result that would falsify each hypothesis. Use when a…
crit-cli
Use when an agent needs to author or reply to crit inline comments programmatically (including multi-agent workflows commenting on shared code/plans/docs/proposals), publish or unpublish a crit review with crit share, sync a crit review to or from a GitHub PR or GitLab MR, or read/interpret a crit review JSON file.…
crit-story
Author a crit story and continue the interactive review loop only when the user explicitly invokes crit-story or directly asks you to generate a crit story. Do not infer this skill from generic review, PR, or diff-review requests.
crit
Review code changes, a plan, a live page (running dev server), or a local HTML file with Crit inline comments and structured human feedback. Use only when the user explicitly invokes /crit or directly asks to use Crit; a generic review request does not count.
crossreview
Run when the user invokes /crossreview (or /crossreview:setup to choose the reviewers) or asks for a cross-review, a quorum review or a second opinion from other agents or models: fan a code review (uncommitted work, a branch, a commit range, files, a plan or a document) out to several console code agents (Claude…
review-harness
Use when reviewing implementation work that ran through a /tmp Pi task harness. Checks contract drift, unsafe shortcuts, validation evidence, and status honesty.