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-docsgit 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-docs)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tobihagemann/turbo/simplify-docs"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tobihagemann/turbo/simplify-docs/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-docs"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tobihagemann/turbo/simplify-docs.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 | $0.00106 | $0.02484 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00053 | $0.01242 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00021 | $0.00497 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00248 |
Grade A, and why
simplify-docs 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 5d 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 — 95 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Simplify Docs
Review code comments and markdown documentation for unnecessary content, then fix the issues.
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, default to a full-tree sweep of source files plus top-level markdown.
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 Two Review Agents in Parallel
Emit both 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 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. 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 uniquely named file in the session scratchpad directory and to return that path with its report, so a compaction before Step 3 leaves the findings recoverable.
Confine the agent's prompt to what to review, plus the conventions and factual properties that bear on it. Pass a property of the existing prose as a fact the agent weighs, such as "the file documents non-obvious third-party behavior". Leave out any statement that tells the agent what verdict to reach about that property, such as "the file is deliberately comment-dense, judge against that established bar", because it binds the agent to accept the very property the review exists to assess.
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.
- 5d ago Changed · +2 lines 24ab828c3f97
- 9d ago First seen · 93 lines · 106 tokens per session scan A cec78abbded5
simplify-docs is a skill published in the GitHub repository tobihagemann/turbo (402 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 106 tokens to every session and 2,484 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
agentic-review
Deep multi-agent code review for local changes. Inspired by AmpCode's agentic review. Use when you want comprehensive analysis of staged changes, unstaged changes, specific commits, or branch differences. Spawns parallel specialized agents (security, performance, patterns, architecture) and synthesizes actionable…
qa
Full QA on all session changes using Codex as a second pair of eyes. Use when user says "QA", "full QA", "QA my changes", "QA all your changes", or "use codex to review". Runs git diff, sends changes to Codex for thorough review, and synthesizes findings.
refactor-advisor
A code review helper that finds common design and maintenance problems in a codebase and suggests ways to restructure the code.
zh-code-reviewer
A Chinese-language code-review specialist that produces a structured review report. It examines coding style, possible bugs, performance, security, and design choices.
review-implementing
Process and implement code review feedback systematically. Use when user provides reviewer comments, PR feedback, code review notes, or asks to implement suggestions from reviews.
code-auditor
Performs comprehensive codebase analysis covering architecture, code quality, security, performance, testing, and maintainability. Use when user wants to audit code quality, identify technical debt, find security issues, assess test coverage, or get a codebase health check.