code-review-simplicity

A code-review approach that looks specifically for unnecessary complexity, unclear code, dead code, duplication, and difficult naming or documentation. Code review is the process of examining code before it is accepted.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review readability, abstractions, cognitive load, duplicated logic, names, comments, and documentation, with findings organized by required fixes and observations.
Why use it?
It helps teams find code that may work but is harder to understand, change, or maintain than necessary. It keeps the review focused on simplicity rather than unrelated concerns such as security or performance.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/randomm/pi-ensemble/code-review-simplicity
Any agent
npx skills add randomm/pi-ensemble --skill code-review-simplicity
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/randomm/pi-ensemble

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Per session 25 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 1,797 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00025 $0.01797
Opus 5 $0.00013 $0.00898
Sonnet 5 $0.00005 $0.00359
Haiku 4.5 $0.00003 $0.00180

Measured 2d ago against content hash ec58938081fd, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

code-review-simplicity 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.

skill/code-review-simplicity/SKILL.md · 158 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 158 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Code Review: Simplicity Lens

Specialized agent for simplicity analysis during code review. Focuses on code clarity, readability, cognitive load, and unnecessary complexity.

Scope Discipline

When PM explicitly dispatches this lens:

  • ✅ Review simplicity concerns: readability, clarity, cognitive load
  • ✅ Analyze code complexity and unnecessary abstractions
  • ✅ Check for naming, comments, and documentation quality
  • ✅ Verify DRY principles and eliminate duplication

Do NOT broaden into:

  • ❌ Type errors/coverage (use TYPE_SAFETY lens)
  • ❌ Security vulnerabilities (use SECURITY lens)
  • ❌ Error-handling hygiene, timeout discipline, retry semantics (use ERROR_HANDLING lens)
  • ❌ Performance characteristics (use PERFORMANCE lens)
  • ❌ Architectural patterns (use ARCHITECTURE lens)

Output Format

All findings must follow this structure:

## Must Fix
- [CRITICAL|HIGH] [path:line] Title
  - Description: What is wrong and why it matters
  - Suggestion: Specific fix with code example
  - Metadata: cross_lens_candidate=true/false, tradeoff_required=true/false

## Observations
- [MEDIUM|LOW] [path:line] Title
  - Description: Informational finding
  - Metadata: cross_lens_candidate=true/false, tradeoff_required=true/false

## Summary
[One paragraph overall assessment]

Severity Scale

  • CRITICAL: Unreadable or incomprehensible code that prevents understanding/maintenance
  • HIGH: Significant complexity that impedes understanding or introduces bugs
  • MEDIUM: Moderate complexity, unclear naming, or missing documentation
  • LOW: Minor readability improvements, cosmetic issues

Metadata Guidance Tags

When reporting findings, always include:

cross_lens_candidate: Indicates this finding might also be relevant to other lenses

  • true if this finding could trigger other lens checks (e.g., complex function might also be performance or architecture issue)
  • false if this is purely a simplicity concern

tradeoff_required: Indicates if fixing this requires accepting a tradeoff

  • true if the fix involves performance, flexibility, or conciseness tradeoffs
  • false if the fix improves simplicity without downsides

Read the full file on GitHub · 158 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 2d ago First seen · 158 lines · 25 tokens per session scan A ec58938081fd

Subscribe to this mod's changes

code-review-simplicity is a skill published in the GitHub repository randomm/pi-ensemble (5 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 25 tokens to every session and 1,797 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories

systematic-debugging

Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.

obra/superpowers · 21 tokens

brainstorming

You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.

obra/superpowers · 37 tokens

auto-perf-optimize

Run agent-driven VS Code performance or memory investigations. Use when asked to launch Code OSS, automate a VS Code scenario, run the Chat memory smoke runner, capture renderer heap snapshots, take workflow screenshots, compare run summaries, or drive a repeatable scenario before heap-snapshot analysis.

microsoft/vscode · 62 tokens

chat-perf

Run chat perf benchmarks and memory leak checks against the local dev build or any published VS Code version. Use when investigating chat rendering regressions, validating perf-sensitive changes to chat UI, or checking for memory leaks in the chat response pipeline.

microsoft/vscode · 51 tokens

chat-pet-sprite-creation

Use when creating or changing VS Code chat pet sprite art, sprite sheets, state animations, eye treatments, Stable/Insiders variants, or pet transitions under src/vs/workbench/contrib/chat/browser/widget/media/chatPet.

microsoft/vscode · 53 tokens

cpu-profile-analysis

Analyze V8/Chrome CPU profiles (.cpuprofile) and DevTools trace files (Trace-.json). Use when: profiling performance, investigating slow functions, comparing code paths, finding bottlenecks, analyzing timeToRequest, understanding call trees from sampling profiler data, analyzing layout/paint/rendering, investigating…

microsoft/vscode · 71 tokens