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 naimkatiman/continuous-improvement --skill minimal-code-disciplinegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/naimkatiman/continuous-improvementWrote 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/naimkatiman/continuous-improvement/minimal-code-discipline)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/naimkatiman/continuous-improvement/minimal-code-discipline"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/naimkatiman/continuous-improvement/minimal-code-discipline/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/naimkatiman/continuous-improvement/minimal-code-discipline"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/naimkatiman/continuous-improvement/minimal-code-discipline.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 | $0.00041 | $0.00608 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00304 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00122 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00061 |
Grade A, and why
minimal-code-discipline 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 2d 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to minimal-code-discipline — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 60 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Minimal Code Discipline
Use this skill to apply a minimal-code (YAGNI-ladder) discipline while planning and writing code changes. It keeps diffs small and obviously correct without sacrificing the checks that keep users safe.
This skill complements ai-slop-cleaner: that skill cleans slop after it lands; this one keeps it from being written.
When to Use
Use this skill when:
- the user asks for a minimal, lean, YAGNI, or smallest-possible-diff implementation
- a plan or in-flight change is growing beyond the stated request
- writing new code where scope creep, reinvented helpers, or speculative generality are likely
- reviewing a proposed diff for size before implementation
When Not to Use
Do not use this skill when:
- the user explicitly asks for a broad, feature-rich, or future-proofed build (their explicit scope wins)
- the task is exploratory scaffolding the user has marked as throwaway
- minimization pressure would touch protected behavior (see Non-Negotiables)
The Discipline
Existence first. Ask whether the change needs to exist at all; skip work that serves only a speculative future need.
Reuse before writing. Search the codebase for an existing helper, type, or pattern before writing anything new. Never copy a helper that already lives a few files away — reuse it or extract it to one shared location.
Dependency ladder. Reach for the standard library first, then platform-native capability, then an already-installed dependency. Hand-written code is the last resort. Do not introduce a new dependency when a few lines of code suffice, unless the user explicitly requested or approved it.
Understand before minimizing. Read the affected code and follow its execution path first. Ship the shortest correct diff once the problem is understood — code you never write never breaks.
Boring over clever. Prefer boring, obviously-correct code over clever code.
Mark the ceiling. Record deliberate simplifications with a short comment naming the accepted limit and what would justify replacing it.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 60 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A 4e013df3913c
minimal-code-discipline is a skill published in the GitHub repository naimkatiman/continuous-improvement (7 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 608 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to minimal-code-discipline, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
meta-codereview-current-diff
Read the current uncommitted diff, run three independent reviewers (safety + tests-coverage + style) in parallel, then arbitrate a single BLOCK / BLOCKWITHOVERRIDE / PASSWITHNOTES verdict. Use before commit when you want a multi-perspective second-opinion instead of a single-reviewer agent loop.
security-audit
Security audit expert for OWASP Top 10, CVE analysis, code review, and penetration testing methodology.
package-optimizer
Evaluate one existing package or bounded package family from recorded evaluator evidence and a capability profile, then propose retain, simplify, strengthen, retire, or inconclusive without editing. Use when optimizing a skill, agent, hook, rule, command, utility, or preset; evaluating whether package detail is…
code-standards
Code quality standards and style guide for reviewing pull requests.
ahk-review
Preview a code review against ticket/objective alignment, with deep semantic (name-vs-behavior) analysis. No tasks created, no harness tracking.
code-review
Review ServiceNow server-side scripts for ES5 violations, ACL/injection/XSS issues, N+1 queries, missing setLimit/error handling, hard-coded sysids, and business-rule recursion risks.