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 mblode/agent-skills --skill tidygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mblode/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/mblode/agent-skills/tidy)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mblode/agent-skills/tidy"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mblode/agent-skills/tidy/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/mblode/agent-skills/tidy"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mblode/agent-skills/tidy.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00144 | $0.03775 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00058 | $0.01510 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00029 | $0.00755 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00378 |
Grade A, and why
tidy 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 5d 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 — 146 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Tidy
Review the diff, then fix it when asked. One pass produces the report; the same pass, in apply mode, lands the fixes along with the simplifications a clean diff still hides.
- IS: review of a local diff, branch diff, PR, or named security scope, returning severity-tiered findings with
file:lineevidence; in apply mode, the smallest complete fixes for those findings plus diff-scoped simplification. - IS NOT: creating PRs (
pr-creator), CI failures and review threads (pr-babysitter), user-facing UX, accessibility, or rendered quality (ui-designAudit mode), library or CLI ergonomics (dx-audit), architecture briefs and repo-wide guardrails (codebase-architecture), reviewing plans (planning), suite-wide test pruning to a measured target (test-audit).
Report or apply
Report is the default: "review my changes", "code review", a mode phrase below, or a PR number. Done is the report in the format under Output, carrying the range reviewed, each baseline command's last line, and the references read. The working tree stays as it was. Do not edit a file in report mode, even for a one-character fix; the moment the tree changes the user loses the read-only report they asked for.
Apply when the user says "tidy", "simplify", "fix", "apply the findings", or asks for the changes to be made. Done is the confirmed findings and supported simplifications in the working tree, the affected checks passing or their failures shown to be baseline, and a summary of what changed, what was left and why, and the check results. Apply mode edits any file the diff touches or a fix requires, and runs the repository's documented lint, type, and test commands without asking: they run locally against the working tree, and landing the changes is what was asked for. It does not commit, push, open PRs, add or upgrade dependencies, run migrations, or write outside the working tree. A report from earlier in the session is input, not authority: apply what current evidence supports and say why anything was not applied.
What ships with it
9 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.
- agents/openai.yaml 1.2 KB
- evals/evals.json 8.1 KB
- references/ai-slop-patterns.md 12 KB
- references/context-errors.md 8.8 KB
- references/performance-checklist.md 2.6 KB
- references/security-checklist.md 8.4 KB
- references/severity-rubric.md 2.6 KB
- references/structural-quality-rubric.md 6.5 KB
- references/test-gate.md 1.7 KB
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.
- 5d ago Changed · +2 lines 1fd6c54b0aab
- 1mo ago Changed · +3 lines · +30 tokens per session e9da74a02bd8
- 1mo ago Changed acba64a4e13a
- 1mo ago Changed · +100 lines · +46 tokens per session 81900a246bd4
- 1mo ago Changed · -164 lines · -154 tokens per session 3b0940d4907b
- 1mo ago First seen · 205 lines · 222 tokens per session scan A 8774e9f31b52
tidy is a skill published in the GitHub repository mblode/agent-skills (167 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 144 tokens to every session and 3,775 once invoked, about $0.0006 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
cpp-coding-standards
C++ coding standards based on the C++ Core Guidelines (isocpp.github.io). Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring C++ code to enforce modern, safe, and idiomatic practices.
simplify-code
Parallel 4-agent cleanup of recent code changes.
coding-standards
Baseline cross-project coding conventions for naming, readability, immutability, and code-quality review. Use detailed frontend or backend skills for framework-specific patterns. Use when reviewing code quality or naming with no framework-specific skill that applies.
pr-lens
Draw code changes as animated architecture/data-flow SVGs.
opencode
Delegate coding to OpenCode CLI (features, PR review).
requesting-code-review
Pre-commit review: security scan, quality gates, auto-fix.