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 qinghaoliqaq/AutoCoder --skill simplifygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/qinghaoliqaq/AutoCoderWrote 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/qinghaoliqaq/autocoder/simplify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/qinghaoliqaq/autocoder/simplify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/qinghaoliqaq/autocoder/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/qinghaoliqaq/autocoder/simplify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/qinghaoliqaq/autocoder/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 | $0.00043 | $0.00607 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00017 | $0.00243 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00121 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00061 |
Grade A, and why
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 — 85 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Simplify — Code Review for Reuse, Quality, and Efficiency
Review the recent code changes across three dimensions simultaneously. For each dimension, analyze the changed files and provide actionable findings.
Review Dimension 1: Code Reuse
Search the codebase for existing utilities, helpers, and patterns that the changed code could leverage instead of reimplementing:
- Look for existing functions that do the same thing (or nearly the same)
- Identify copy-pasted logic that could use a shared helper
- Find framework/library utilities being reimplemented by hand
- Check if there are existing types, constants, or enums that should be reused
For each finding, provide:
- The duplicated code location (file:line)
- The existing utility that should be used instead
- A suggested fix
Review Dimension 2: Code Quality
Review the changes for patterns that indicate technical debt or fragility:
- Overly complex conditionals that could be simplified
- Magic numbers or strings that should be named constants
- Functions doing too many things (violating single responsibility)
- Error handling that swallows or hides failures
- Naming that doesn't clearly communicate intent
- Dead code paths or unreachable branches
- Missing edge case handling at system boundaries
For each finding, provide:
- The problematic code location
- Why it's a problem
- A suggested improvement
Review Dimension 3: Efficiency
Review for unnecessary computational work or architectural inefficiency:
- N+1 query patterns or redundant data fetches
- Unnecessary allocations in hot paths
- Blocking operations that could be async
- Missing caching for expensive repeated computations
- Unnecessary serialization/deserialization cycles
- Large data structures being cloned when references would suffice
- Sequential operations that could run concurrently
For each finding, provide:
- The inefficient code location
- The performance impact (estimated)
- A suggested optimization
Output Format
Organize findings by dimension. For each dimension:
- List findings from most to least impactful
- Include file paths and line numbers
- Show concrete code suggestions (not just descriptions)
- Skip trivial issues — focus on changes that meaningfully improve the code
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 · 85 lines · 43 tokens per session scan A 7dd9c2f3089a
simplify is a skill published in the GitHub repository qinghaoliqaq/AutoCoder (12 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 43 tokens to every session and 607 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
skeptic-review
Use when you want an adversarial steelman pass on a text artifact before it ships — surface the load-bearing claims, the strongest unaddressed counter-position, the top failure modes, and any causality-vs-correlation gaps. Encodes the Skeptic deliberator role from the agent-council 5-perspective quality gate. Use…
Codex
Guides operator-owned delegation to Codex when the task fits a bounded coding lane, review pass, or worktree-isolated implementation track.
pr-checks
Run comprehensive PR checks including reviewing CodeRabbit comments, ensuring PR description quality, running pre-commit hooks, tests, and validation. Use on an existing PR to address review feedback.
review-prs
Review a GitHub pull request in the googleapis/mcp-toolbox repo against the team's reviewer checklist: PR title/description conventions, linked issue, logic errors and unhandled edge cases, breaking changes, test coverage, docs updates, security (input handling), and new dependencies. Use whenever a maintainer asks…
github
GitHub operations via gh CLI: issues, PRs, CI runs, code review, API queries. Use when: (1) checking PR status or CI, (2) creating/commenting on issues, (3) listing/filtering PRs or issues, (4) viewing run logs. NOT for: complex web UI interactions requiring manual browser flows (use browser tooling when available)…
hypotheses
Turns a research direction into testable hypotheses with predictions, competing explanations and the experiments that discriminate between them, including the design (controls, randomization, blocking), sample size or seed count, the pre-specified analysis, and the result that would falsify each hypothesis. Use when a…