Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →tobihagemann/simplify-code
Run a multi-agent review of changed files for scope, reuse, quality, efficiency, clarity, and altitude issues followed by automated fixes.
Passed 3 of 10 test cases with the skill, and 7 of 10 without it.
1 fixed6 passed either way6 still failing9 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
A test case the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
A code review finding suggests altering a function interface that the user previously explicit approved. What specific choices should be offered to the user?
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Offers the three options Apply, Keep the approved shape, and Get a second opinion | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
Review code for scope, reuse, quality, efficiency, clarity, and altitude issues, then fix them.
Determine what to review:
git diff --cached), use that.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 with gh pr view --json baseRefName --jq '.baseRefName', run git fetch origin <base-branch>, and diff against origin/<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.
Launch all six agents below with spawn_agent / wait_agent using inherited model defaults, issuing every call in one batch. Do not issue one and await its result before issuing the rest. Pass the scope from Step 1 to each agent. Every sub-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.
Confine the sub-agent's prompt to what to review, plus the conventions and factual properties that bear on it. Pass a property of the existing code as a fact the sub-agent weighs, such as "the retry loop guards a dependency known to fail intermittently". Leave out any statement that tells the sub-agent what verdict to reach about that property, such as "the duplication here is intentional for readability, judge against that", because it binds the sub-agent to accept the very property the review exists to assess.
Review the changes for code that should not exist:
Trace the callers of any code proposed for deletion and confirm nothing depends on the behavior being removed. Input validation at trust boundaries, error handling that prevents data loss, security controls, accessibility affordances, and anything the request explicitly asked for outrank the three checks above.
For each change:
test cases passed, vs 7 / 10 without
Published skills whose descriptions closely match this one, with their headline benchmark lift.
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.