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 pwdev-solucoes/pwdev-claude-marketplace --skill flow-simplifygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/pwdev-solucoes/pwdev-claude-marketplaceWrote 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/pwdev-solucoes/pwdev-claude-marketplace/flow-simplify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/pwdev-solucoes/pwdev-claude-marketplace/flow-simplify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pwdev-solucoes/pwdev-claude-marketplace/flow-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/pwdev-solucoes/pwdev-claude-marketplace/flow-simplify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/pwdev-solucoes/pwdev-claude-marketplace/flow-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 | $0.00047 | $0.00476 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00190 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00095 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00048 |
Grade A, and why
flow-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 1mo 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 — 37 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Simplify without changing behavior
Read execution, collaboration, memory, artifacts, and safety.
MODE: ANALYZE
- Resolve an explicit diff or current phase execution scope.
- Read quality criteria, prohibitions, repository conventions, relevant memories, tests, and the full diff.
- Do not edit code in ANALYZE mode.
- Propose only changes with at least 80% confidence that preserve observable behavior:
- reuse an existing abstraction;
- remove proven dead or duplicate code;
- flatten needless control flow or indirection;
- remove avoidable work with equivalent semantics.
- Exclude bug fixes, behavior changes, speculative abstractions, broad rewrites, and style-only churn.
- Write
simplify-proposals.mdwith ID, confidence, kind, files, before/after sketch, evidence, risk, and verification command. - Present proposals by ID and stop. MODE: APPLY requires explicit approval; never analyze and apply in one uninterrupted step.
MODE: APPLY
- Require explicit approval listing proposal IDs. Ignore unapproved proposals.
- Re-read the current diff and stop if proposal assumptions are stale.
- Apply one approved proposal at a time within its declared files.
- Run its focused verification immediately. On failure, restore only that proposal's edits when they can be isolated safely; otherwise stop and request direction.
- Run the broader affected suite after all successful proposals.
- Append applied, skipped, and evidence results to
simplify-proposals.md. - Mark prior review evidence stale and set
REVIEW_REQUIRED.
Work inline by default. Use a worker only when the user explicitly requests delegation, and keep ANALYZE and APPLY as separate approval-gated actions.
Do not commit or change unrelated files. Return mode, proposal or application counts, report path, verification evidence, and next action.
What ships with it
1 file 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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 37 lines · 47 tokens per session scan A 86e83997d0e1
flow-simplify is a skill published in the GitHub repository pwdev-solucoes/pwdev-claude-marketplace (3 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 476 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…