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 renky1025/agent-skills --skill claude-simplifygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/renky1025/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/renky1025/agent-skills/claude-simplify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/renky1025/agent-skills/claude-simplify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/renky1025/agent-skills/claude-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/renky1025/agent-skills/claude-simplify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/renky1025/agent-skills/claude-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 | $0.00131 | $0.01205 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00052 | $0.00482 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.00241 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00120 |
Grade A, and why
claude-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.
This is a copy
84% identical to simplify — 121 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 — 106 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Simplify: Code Review and Cleanup
Purpose
Turn a freshly written change set into a cleaner one. It runs three independent review lenses over the diff — reuse, quality, efficiency — aggregates their findings, and applies the fixes directly, so the output is improved code plus a short account of what changed.
When to Use
- Immediately after finishing a feature, bugfix, or refactor, before committing.
- The user asks to simplify, clean up, review, or optimize the code they just wrote.
- A diff is about to become a PR and needs a quality pass first.
- Trigger phrases: "simplify this", "review my changes", "clean up the code", "check for issues", "refactor", "code review", "optimize"; 「审查我的改动」「清理代码」 「简化代码」「代码审查」.
When NOT to Use
- The user wants the diff explained, not changed -> answer directly, run no agents.
- The request is a repo-wide audit of unchanged code -> scope here is the diff only; review the touched code or hand off to a broader audit skill.
- The request is a security review of untrusted third-party code -> hand off to
skill-security-check. - The user wants new functionality or a redesign, not cleanup -> that is a feature task, not this skill.
Workflow
- Identify the changes. Run
git diff(usegit diff HEADwhen changes are staged). If there is no git diff, review the files the user named or that you edited earlier in this conversation. - Launch the three review agents in parallel. In a single message, start the reuse,
quality, and efficiency agents and give each the full diff plus its checklist from
references/review-checklists.md. - Wait for all three to finish, then aggregate their findings into one list.
- Fix each issue directly. Skip false positives and low-value findings silently — note them, do not argue.
- Summarize what was fixed, what was flagged but deliberately skipped, and confirm when the code was already clean.
Decision Rules
- No git changes at all -> review the most recently modified files the user mentioned; never invent a diff.
- A finding is a false positive or not worth addressing -> skip it and record it in the summary; do not debate the reviewer.
- A finding touches the changed lines or their immediate helpers -> fix it in place.
- A finding would require changing unrelated, pre-existing code -> report it instead of editing (see Priority).
- The same problem is reported by more than one agent -> fix once, list it once.
- User gave a focus area via
argument-hint-> weight that lens, but still run all three.
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 Changed · +41 lines · +108 tokens per session 914e3b25d616
- 1mo ago First seen · 65 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A e9a3fa2552da
claude-simplify is a skill published in the GitHub repository renky1025/agent-skills (11 stars, last pushed 15d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 131 tokens to every session and 1,205 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 84% identical to simplify, differing in 121 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
mindos
MindOS: local knowledge assistant & shared KB. Keeps decisions, notes, SOPs, debugging lessons, research findings, preferences across sessions/agents. Core: save notes, search KB, organize files, run workflows, review, append CSV, hand off context, distill lessons. NOT for app source or paths outside KB. Triggers…
superlint
This skill describes the mandatory standard operating procedure for using our internal SuperLint tool. Use this when tasks require fixing code quality issues according to corporate standards.
api-design
Design public interfaces for libraries and tools that other people depend on. Use when designing or reviewing a public API surface, deciding what to export, naming functions and CLI flags, adding configuration options, planning deprecations, or when the user asks "is this a good API" or "how do I change this without…
code-review
Review a pull request the way a good open-source maintainer does. Use when reviewing an incoming PR, when the user asks "review this PR" or "is this ready to merge", when triaging a stale PR queue, or when writing review feedback to an external contributor. Covers what to check and in what order, severity levels…
refactor-safely
Restructure code that other people depend on without breaking them. Use when planning a large refactor or rewrite, splitting a monolith into packages, renaming or moving public symbols, changing internal architecture behind a stable API, or when the user says "I want to rewrite this" or "this code needs to be cleaned…
code_review
Comprehensive code review for quality, security, performance, and best practices across any language.