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 imMamdouhaboammar/get-fable --skill fable-simplifygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/imMamdouhaboammar/get-fableWrote 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/immamdouhaboammar/get-fable/fable-simplify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/immamdouhaboammar/get-fable/fable-simplify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/immamdouhaboammar/get-fable/fable-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/immamdouhaboammar/get-fable/fable-simplify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/immamdouhaboammar/get-fable/fable-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 | $0.00127 | $0.01521 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00063 | $0.00760 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00025 | $0.00304 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00152 |
Grade A, and why
fable-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 4d 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 — 186 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Fable Simplify
Reduce accidental complexity while proving the externally relevant behavior and contracts did not change.
Mission
Simplification is not permission for a broad rewrite. It should make the code easier to reason about through small, reviewable transformations backed by characterization/invariant evidence.
"Cleaner" is subjective. Behavior preservation, reduced duplication/branching/indirection, and clearer ownership can be demonstrated.
Activate When
- duplicated logic creates divergence risk;
- nested/control-flow complexity obscures invariants;
- dead code/obsolete indirection is proven unused;
- a refactor is explicitly requested with no intended behavior change;
- a completed implementation needs bounded cleanup before review.
Do Not Activate When
- user-visible behavior/API/schema is intended to change (
fable-tdd/fable-execute); - behavior is not characterized well enough to preserve;
- architecture itself is being redesigned (
fable-plan); - a cleanup opportunity is unrelated to the active card.
Simplification Classification
| Smell | Safe first move |
|---|---|
| duplicated behavior | prove equivalence, extract shared rule |
| nested branching | identify decision table/invariants, flatten incrementally |
| dead code | prove no runtime/registration/reflection reachability |
| wrapper/indirection | prove callers/semantics before collapse |
| data transformation chain | characterize representative + boundary inputs |
| public/internal API clutter | preserve public contract; simplify behind boundary |
| generated code noise | change generator/source, not output manually |
Protocol
Stage 1 — Establish preservation contract
State what must not change:
- public inputs/outputs/errors;
- side effects/state transitions;
- serialization/order/timing where contractual;
- package/API/CLI compatibility;
- performance requirements if material.
Capture baseline tests/fixtures/runtime evidence. If coverage is weak, add characterization before structural mutation.
What ships with it
7 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.
- 4d ago First seen · 186 lines · 127 tokens per session scan A 737da5d4ed1e
fable-simplify is a skill published in the GitHub repository imMamdouhaboammar/get-fable (4 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 127 tokens to every session and 1,521 once invoked, about $0.0006 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 2026-09-05.
Other skills, from other repositories
reviewing-changes
Use when a review package asks you to review a plan step's change set (todo.startReview): you are the REVIEWER, not the author. How to judge an agent-written diff, file findings with addreviewcomment, and settle with exactly one reviewverdict.
reflecting-findings
Use when a reflection package hands you another agent's review findings to verify (before they become a fix request): you are the REFLECTOR, an independent skeptic. Judge each finding against the real code and settle it with reflectfinding — kept or refuted.
reviewing
Claude-on-Claude code review protocol — reviews implementation against spec requirements and code quality standards.
code
Use BEFORE generating, refactoring, reviewing, or debugging code. Trigger phrases include "write a function/script/class for X", "review this code/diff/PR", "refactor this", "debug this error", "is this implementation correct", "what's wrong with this code", "improve this code", "translate from X to Y", or any prompt…
improve-codebase-architecture
Find deepening opportunities in a codebase, informed by the domain language in CONTEXT.md and the decisions in docs/adr/. Use when the user wants to improve architecture, find refactoring opportunities, consolidate tightly-coupled modules, or make a codebase more testable and AI-navigable.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.