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 sneg55/agent-starter --skill simplifygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sneg55/agent-starterWrote 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/sneg55/agent-starter/simplify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sneg55/agent-starter/simplify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sneg55/agent-starter/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/sneg55/agent-starter/simplify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sneg55/agent-starter/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 | $0.00020 | $0.00867 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00347 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00173 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00087 |
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.
This is a copy
95% identical to simplify — 29 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 — 64 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Simplify: Code Review and Cleanup
Review all changed files for reuse, quality, and efficiency. Fix any issues found.
Phase 1: Identify Changes
Run git diff (or git diff HEAD if there are staged changes) to see what changed. If there are no git changes, review the most recently modified files that the user mentioned or that you edited earlier in this conversation.
Phase 2: Launch Three Review Agents in Parallel
Use the Agent tool to launch all three agents concurrently in a single message. Pass each agent the full diff so it has the complete context.
Agent 1: Code Reuse Review
For each change:
- Search for existing utilities and helpers that could replace newly written code. Look for similar patterns elsewhere in the codebase - common locations are utility directories, shared modules, and files adjacent to the changed ones.
- Flag any new function that duplicates existing functionality. Suggest the existing function to use instead.
- Flag any inline logic that could use an existing utility - hand-rolled string manipulation, manual path handling, custom environment checks, ad-hoc type guards, and similar patterns are common candidates.
Agent 2: Code Quality Review
Review the same changes for hacky patterns:
- Redundant state: state that duplicates existing state, cached values that could be derived, observers/effects that could be direct calls
- Parameter sprawl: adding new parameters to a function instead of generalizing or restructuring existing ones
- Copy-paste with slight variation: near-duplicate code blocks that should be unified with a shared abstraction
- Leaky abstractions: exposing internal details that should be encapsulated, or breaking existing abstraction boundaries
- Stringly-typed code: using raw strings where constants, enums (string unions), or branded types already exist in the codebase
- Unnecessary JSX nesting: wrapper Boxes/elements that add no layout value - check if inner component props (flexShrink, alignItems, etc.) already provide the needed behavior
- Unnecessary comments: comments explaining WHAT the code does (well-named identifiers already do that), narrating the change, or referencing the task/caller - delete; keep only non-obvious WHY (hidden constraints, subtle invariants, workarounds)
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 · 64 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A 0fca4682b8b9
simplify is a skill published in the GitHub repository sneg55/agent-starter (76 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 867 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 95% identical to simplify, differing in 29 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
gemini
Cross-model second opinion from Google Gemini — a different AI reviewing the same changes, with deep Google ecosystem knowledge. Three modes: review (pass/fail gate for Google Ads campaigns, SEO metadata, or code), challenge (adversarial stress-test that tries to break your changes), and consult (open Q&A with Gemini…
critical-code-reviewer
Rigorously review code or pull requests for correctness, security, accessibility, maintainability, tests, and edge cases. Use when users request a critical code review, want a guided walkthrough of findings, need implementer-facing feedback, or want to prepare, create, or submit a GitHub pull request review.
boundaries
Analyze Phoenix context boundaries and module coupling via mix xref. Use when checking cross-context calls, validating dependencies, before splitting modules, or reviewing architecture.
triage
Triage review findings interactively — approve, skip, or prioritize each issue. Use after /phx:review to filter findings before fixing.
pr-threads-address
Address PR review feedback by systematically working through every unresolved PR review thread on the current branch's PR - analyze each comment, make the requested code changes (with tests where useful), commit, and optionally reply and resolve.
r-tidyverse-style
Use when the user asks to review or clean up R code for tidyverse style, standardize formatting or names, remove redundant comments or wrappers, or make a behavior-preserving style pass. Also use when writing substantial new R package code if the user requests tidyverse style or the package already follows it. Not for…