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 tobihagemann/turbo --skill simplify-codegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tobihagemann/turboWrote 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/tobihagemann/turbo/simplify-code)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tobihagemann/turbo/simplify-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tobihagemann/turbo/simplify-code/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/tobihagemann/turbo/simplify-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tobihagemann/turbo/simplify-code.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00081 | $0.03135 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00032 | $0.01254 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00627 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00314 |
Grade A, and why
simplify-code 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 119 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Simplify Code
Review code for scope, reuse, quality, efficiency, clarity, and altitude issues, then fix them.
Step 1: Determine the Scope
Determine what to review:
- If a specific diff command was provided (e.g.,
git diff --cached), use that. - If a file list or directory was provided, review those files directly (read the full files, not a diff).
- If neither was provided, determine the appropriate diff command (e.g.,
git diff,git diff --cached,git diff HEAD) based on the current git state. When the branch is an open pull request, resolve its base withgh pr view --json baseRefName --jq '.baseRefName', rungit fetch origin <base-branch>, and diff againstorigin/<base-branch>...HEAD: a local branch of the same name can sit behind the remote, which puts the merge base before an already-merged pull request and pulls merged work into the scope. If there are no git changes, review the most recently modified files mentioned in the conversation.
State the resolved file list before launching the agents: add --name-only to a diff command, or list the files for a file or directory scope.
Step 2: Launch Six Review Agents in Parallel
Emit all six Agent tool calls below in one assistant message. Each Agent call uses model: "opus" and no name. Wait for every agent to report before continuing. Do not begin the next step on a partial set, and do not relaunch an agent that has not yet reported. Pass the scope from Step 1 to each agent. Every agent's prompt must direct it to omit name on any Agent tool call it makes itself. Every agent's prompt must also direct it to treat the shared working tree and its git index as read-only and to reach its findings by reading and reasoning; fixes happen in Step 3. Every agent's prompt must also direct it to search the repository with a tool that skips gitignored files, such as git grep --untracked or the Grep tool, and to open or search a gitignored path only when its prompt or a file its prompt directs it to read names it, or when a dependency's installed source is needed to verify a claim, never one holding local configuration or credentials. For an empirical check that verifies a finding, the agent works in a copy of the checkout created at a uniquely named path of its own in the session scratchpad directory. Refer to that copy by absolute path in every command and join chained steps with &&, so a failed step cannot leave the rest running in the shared checkout. Give that copy its own dependency install rather than reaching the shared tree's install by any route. When its own install is not possible, the check is left unrun and reported as such. Before reporting, the agent deletes that copy, its dependency install included, as a command of its own, and confirms the path no longer exists. A copy it could not delete is named by path in its report. HEAD stays where it is: read other refs with git show <ref>:<path> rather than git checkout or git switch. Direct each agent to write its full findings to a file named for its review followed by a random tag, in the session scratchpad directory, and to return that path with its report, so a compaction before Step 3 leaves the findings recoverable.
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.
- 2d ago Changed df85655a25fb
- 5d ago Changed df6c0774816f
- 6d ago Changed cf42841f9605
- 11d ago Changed f6f743f2489d
- 16d ago Changed a2a82ba8934b
- 19d ago Changed · +1 lines 7c9c0ff6dd61
- 20d ago Changed da88fe9d2c48
- 26d ago Changed · +1 lines 656e387846e9
- 1mo ago Changed 68ce0c5bc34f
- 1mo ago First seen · 117 lines · 81 tokens per session scan A 080298615d2b
simplify-code is a skill published in the GitHub repository tobihagemann/turbo (416 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 81 tokens to every session and 3,135 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
doubt-driven-development
Subjects every non-trivial decision to a fresh-context adversarial review before it stands. Use when you want every assumption cross-examined before proceeding, when stress-testing a plan for hidden failure modes, when correctness matters more than speed, when working in unfamiliar code, when stakes are high…
check
Reviews diffs, PRs, release readiness, and publishing follow-through. Use when asked to review, triage issues or PRs, or ship. Not for debugging root causes or prose.
ego-lite-simplify
Find and implement evidence-backed simplifications in the ego-lite repository. Use when reviewing the codebase for dead code, duplicated state or APIs, speculative abstractions, unnecessary compatibility layers, hand-written infrastructure, excessive tests or documentation, or when the user asks to reduce code size or…
audit
Project health audit and health check — architecture, performance, tests, dependencies, code quality. Use when assessing overall project health, before releases, or after refactors.
code-review-web
Review web application code for bugs, security issues, performance problems, and stack-specific anti-patterns. Use this skill whenever the user wants to review code, debug a production issue, investigate a build failure, audit security, or check a PR before merging. Triggers on code review, review my code, debug…
code-assessment
Detect, review, and fix code-quality and correctness issues in an AEM as a Cloud Service project — locally, with no external services or network calls. Use whenever a user wants to check, review, assess, audit, scan, modernize, upgrade, or fix AEM Java, Sling Models, OSGi, or Maven code — for example: "check my Sling…