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 uniqbit-ag/mate-cli --skill mate-simplify-codegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/uniqbit-ag/mate-cliWrote 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/uniqbit-ag/mate-cli/mate-simplify-code)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/uniqbit-ag/mate-cli/mate-simplify-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/uniqbit-ag/mate-cli/mate-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/uniqbit-ag/mate-cli/mate-simplify-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/uniqbit-ag/mate-cli/mate-simplify-code.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 | $0.00052 | $0.06027 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00021 | $0.02411 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.01205 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00603 |
Grade A, and why
mate-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 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.
This is a copy
89% identical to code-simplification — 345 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 — 513 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Mate Simplify Code
Overview
Simplify code by reducing complexity while preserving exact behavior. The goal is not fewer lines — it's code that is easier to read, understand, modify, and debug. Every simplification must pass a simple test: "Would a new team member understand this faster than the original?"
Mate Workflow
- Inspect the requested scope and its callers, callees, and tests before editing. Use the available code-graph tools before broad source scans.
- Keep the refactor limited to the requested scope; do not make unrelated cleanup changes.
- Do not modify tests merely to make a refactor pass.
- Format touched files with the project's own formatter — detect it first (see Principle 2); never run a formatter the project has not adopted.
- Run
mate cap index --tokensaveafter code changes. - Never commit, push, or create a pull request unless the user explicitly asks.
When NOT to Use
- Code is already clean and readable — don't simplify for the sake of it
- You don't understand what the code does yet — comprehend before you simplify
- The code is performance-critical and the "simpler" version would be measurably slower
- You're about to rewrite the module entirely — simplifying throwaway code wastes effort
The Five Principles
1. Preserve Behavior Exactly
Don't change what the code does — only how it expresses it. All inputs, outputs, side effects, error behavior, and edge cases must remain identical. If you're not sure a simplification preserves behavior, don't make it.
ASK BEFORE EVERY CHANGE:
→ Does this produce the same output for every input?
→ Does this maintain the same error behavior?
→ Does this preserve the same side effects and ordering?
→ Do all existing tests still pass without modification?
2. Follow Project Conventions
Simplification means making code more consistent with the codebase, not imposing external preferences. Before simplifying:
1. Read CLAUDE.md / project conventions
2. Study how neighboring code handles similar patterns
3. Match the project's style for:
- Import ordering and module system
- Function declaration style
- Naming conventions
- Error handling patterns
- Type annotation depth
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 · +6 lines 9e3186d08c52
- 23d ago Changed · +3 lines 6fff7fff920c
- 1mo ago Changed · +160 lines 5dd2abc9571b
- 1mo ago First seen · 344 lines · 52 tokens per session scan A f0d8f4ab643f
mate-simplify-code is a skill published in the GitHub repository uniqbit-ag/mate-cli (12 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 52 tokens to every session and 6,027 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 89% identical to code-simplification, differing in 345 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
test-review
You are an expert DataHub test reviewer. Your role is to evaluate pytest smoke tests against established testing standards, identify issues, and provide actionable feedback.
grade-tests
Grade curated individual tests for readiness, A-F quality and improvements. ALWAYS USE FOR: grade tests, review only a named test, per-test readiness or quality bands for supplied methods, bodies, file spans or bounded PR diffs, including existing tests. Return Pass/Failed/Uncertain/Not applicable; unresolved/empty…
go-testing
Trigger: Go tests, go test coverage, Bubbletea teatest, golden files. Apply focused Go testing patterns.
brooks-test
Test quality review drawing on twelve classic engineering books — with primary focus on xUnit Test Patterns, The Art of Unit Testing, How Google Tests Software, and Working Effectively with Legacy Code — that diagnoses structural problems in an existing test suite: brittleness, mock abuse, coverage illusions, slow…
dart-mechanical-refactor
DART Mechanical Refactor: perform a behavior-preserving mechanical refactor.
refactor
Refactors code for quality and maintainability. Triggers: refactor, clean up, restructure, improve code, modernize.