serve-sim is a command-line tool for serving Apple Simulator applications or files over a network, similar to how `npx serve` serves web files. It is used for headless iOS development workflows, and the catalogue entries provide agent instructions and skills for operating it.
Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to EvanBacon/serve-sim. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/EvanBacon/serve-sim/main/.agents/skills/thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/EvanBacon/serve-simWrote 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/evanbacon/serve-sim/thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/evanbacon/serve-sim/thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/evanbacon/serve-sim/thermo-nuclear-code-quality-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/evanbacon/serve-sim/thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/evanbacon/serve-sim/thermo-nuclear-code-quality-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 | $0.00054 | $0.02485 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00994 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00497 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00248 |
Grade A, and why
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-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 23d 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.
Copies of this mod
8 near-identical copies found in the catalogue:
- thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
- thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 193 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Thermo-Nuclear Code Quality Review
Use this skill for an unusually strict review focused on implementation quality, maintainability, abstraction quality, and codebase health.
Above all, this skill should push the reviewer to be ambitious about code structure. Do not merely identify local cleanup opportunities. Actively search for "code judo" moves: restructurings that preserve behavior while making the implementation dramatically simpler, smaller, more direct, and more elegant.
Core Prompt
Start from this baseline:
Perform a deep code quality audit of the current branch's changes. Rethink how to structure / implement the changes to meaningfully improve code quality without impacting behavior. Work to improve abstractions, modularity, reduce Spaghetti code, improve succinctness and legibility. Be ambitious, if there is a clear path to improving the implementation that involves restructuring some of the codebase, go for it. Be extremely thorough and rigorous. Measure twice, cut once.
Non-Negotiable Additional Standards
Apply the baseline prompt above, plus these explicit review rules:
-
Be ambitious about structural simplification.
- Do not stop at "this could be a bit cleaner."
- Look for opportunities to reframe the change so that whole branches, helpers, modes, conditionals, or layers disappear entirely.
- Prefer the solution that makes the code feel inevitable in hindsight.
- Assume there is often a "code judo" move available: a re-organization that uses the existing architecture more effectively and makes the change dramatically simpler and more elegant.
- If you see a path to delete complexity rather than rearrange it, push hard for that path.
-
Do not let a PR push a file from under 1k lines to over 1k lines without a very strong reason.
- Treat this as a strong code-quality smell by default.
- Prefer extracting helpers, subcomponents, modules, or local abstractions instead of letting a file sprawl past 1000 lines.
- If the diff crosses that threshold, explicitly ask whether the code should be decomposed first.
- Only waive this if there is a compelling structural reason and the resulting file is still clearly organized.
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.
- 23d ago First seen · 193 lines · 54 tokens per session scan A 7faca08b51b6
thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository EvanBacon/serve-sim (2,879 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 54 tokens to every session and 2,485 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-23.
Other skills, from other repositories
safe-refactoring
Execute behavior-preserving or intentionally scoped refactors safely. Use this for multi-file renames, component/service extraction, state-management changes, API migrations, concurrency refactors, or any request where unrelated user work and subtle contracts must be preserved.
mindos
MindOS: local knowledge assistant & shared KB. Keeps decisions, notes, SOPs, debugging lessons, research findings, preferences across sessions/agents. Core: save notes, search KB, organize files, run workflows, review, append CSV, hand off context, distill lessons. NOT for app source or paths outside KB. Triggers…
superlint
This skill describes the mandatory standard operating procedure for using our internal SuperLint tool. Use this when tasks require fixing code quality issues according to corporate standards.
spm-build-analysis
Analyze Swift Package Manager dependencies, package plugins, module variants, and CI-oriented build overhead that slow Xcode builds. Use when a developer suspects packages, plugins, or dependency graph shape are hurting clean or incremental build performance, mentions SPM slowness, package resolution time, build…
xcode-compilation-analyzer
Analyze Swift and mixed-language compile hotspots using build timing summaries and Swift frontend diagnostics, then produce a recommend-first source-level optimization plan. Use when a developer reports slow compilation, type-checking warnings, expensive clean-build compile phases, long CompileSwiftSources tasks…
xcode-project-analyzer
Audit Xcode project configuration, build settings, scheme behavior, and script phases to find build-time improvements with explicit approval gates. Use when a developer wants project-level build analysis, slow incremental builds, guidance on target dependencies, build settings review, run script phase analysis…