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 markoblogo/abvx-agent-skills --skill overengineering-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/markoblogo/abvx-agent-skillsWrote 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/markoblogo/abvx-agent-skills/overengineering-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/markoblogo/abvx-agent-skills/overengineering-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/markoblogo/abvx-agent-skills/overengineering-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/markoblogo/abvx-agent-skills/overengineering-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/markoblogo/abvx-agent-skills/overengineering-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 | $0.00062 | $0.00689 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00031 | $0.00345 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00138 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00069 |
Grade A, and why
overengineering-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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 95 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Overengineering Review
Review only for unnecessary complexity. This skill does not hunt general correctness issues unless they directly affect the simplification recommendation.
Pair With
- Use
minimal-diff-builderwhen the user wants the simplification findings turned into the smallest correct patch. - Use
complexity-optimizerinstead when the real question is performance or algorithmic cost rather than architectural bloat. - Use
architecture-deepening-reviewinstead when the code is not overbuilt but the boundary design is still wrong.
Review Surface
Look for:
- needless abstractions;
- replaceable dependencies;
- dead flexibility;
- wrappers around stdlib or native platform features;
- local helpers or files that only forward to something simpler;
- speculative extension points with one caller or one implementation.
Findings Taxonomy
Use these tags:
delete:code or layer can disappear entirely.stdlib:custom logic should be replaced by a standard-library primitive.native:use built-in platform behavior instead of app code or dependency code.existing-dep:repo already ships a dependency that makes the extra code unnecessary.yagni:speculative abstraction or configurability with no present payoff.shrink:same behavior, fewer moving parts.
Workflow
- Determine scope:
- diff review;
- file review;
- broad repo audit.
- Ignore style nitpicks that do not reduce real complexity.
- Rank findings by payoff:
- dependency removal;
- file/layer deletion;
- abstraction collapse;
- line-count shrink.
- For each finding, capture:
- location;
- tag;
- what is overbuilt;
- what replaces it;
- why the simpler path still covers the requirement;
- any safety caveat.
- Keep findings review-grade:
- specific;
- actionable;
- minimal prose;
- no vague "this feels complex" commentary.
Output Format
One finding per line in ranked order:
<file>:L<line> <tag> <what to cut>. <replacement>. <why it still covers the need>.
What ships with it
2 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.
- 11d ago First seen · 95 lines · 62 tokens per session scan A 0dcd80f04aed
overengineering-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository markoblogo/abvx-agent-skills (16 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 62 tokens to every session and 689 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
printing-press-output-review
Internal sub-skill: agentic review of a printed CLI's sampled command output for plausibility issues that rule-based checks can't encode (substring-match relevance, format bugs, silent source drops, ranking failures). Invoked via the Skill tool by the main printing-press skill at Phase 4.85 and printing-press-polish…
systemic-issue-triage
Trigger: new issue, bug report, triage, backlog, issue flood, community report, root cause, dead-end, blocked user. Attack issues by root class, never one-by-one; fixes must shrink the system, not grow it.
issue-root-resolution
Trigger: root audit, atacar la raíz, issue roots, backlog roots, mechanism map, deletion-driven fix, resolver issues de raíz, close outdated issues. Audit and resolve issue clusters by verified root cause.
rdd-defect-workflow
Trigger: RDD, receipt-driven development, review authority, receipt/lineage, correction/recovery, delivery gate/kill switch, bounded review defects. Guide work.
review-loop
Run the adversarial verification loop — implement, then hand the change to a fresh checker that did not write it, fix what it finds, and re-dispatch until APPROVE. Use before claiming any behavioural change is done, and on requests like "review loop", "adversarial review", "independent review", "get this verified"…
semgrep-rule-creator
Creates custom Semgrep rules for detecting security vulnerabilities, bug patterns, and code patterns. Use when writing Semgrep rules or building custom static analysis detections.