Review a scoped diff for reuse, quality, efficiency, and clarity via parallel review roles, then optionally apply only high-confidence, behavior-preserving simplifications. USE WHEN the user asks to simplify, clean up, refactor, or review changed code and wants safe improvements on a git diff without changing behavior.
Review a scoped diff for reuse, quality, efficiency, and clarity via parallel review roles, then optionally apply only high-confidence, behavior-preserving simplifications. USE WHEN the user asks to simplify, clean up, refactor, or review changed code and wants safe improvements on a git diff without changing behavior.
cluster
quality-eval
version
1.0.0
origin
antigravity-awesome-skills (MIT)
risk
safe
source
Dimillian/Skills (MIT)
date_added
2026-03-25
Simplify Code
Review changed code for reuse, quality, efficiency, and clarity issues. Use Codex sub-agents to review in parallel, then optionally apply only high-confidence, behavior-preserving fixes.
When to Use
When the user asks to simplify, clean up, refactor, or review changed code.
When you want high-confidence, behavior-preserving improvements on a scoped diff.
Modes
Choose the mode from the user's request:
review-only: user asks to review, audit, or check the changes
safe-fixes: user asks to simplify, clean up, or refactor the changes
fix-and-validate: same as safe-fixes, but also run the smallest relevant validation after edits
If the user does not specify, default to:
review-only for "review", "audit", or "check"
safe-fixes for "simplify", "clean up", or "refactor"
Step 1: Determine the Scope and Diff Command
Prefer this scope order:
Files or paths explicitly named by the user
Current git changes
Files edited earlier in the current Codex turn
Most recently modified tracked files, only if the user asked for a review but there is no diff
If there is no clear scope, stop and say so briefly.
When using git changes, determine the smallest correct diff command based on the repo state:
unstaged work: git diff
staged work: git diff --cached
branch or commit comparison explicitly requested by the user: use that exact diff target
mixed staged and unstaged work: review both
Do not assume git diff HEAD is the right default when a smaller diff is available.
Before reviewing standards or applying fixes, read the repo's local instruction files and relevant project docs for the touched area. Prefer the closest applicable guidance, such as:
AGENTS.md
repo workflow docs
architecture or style docs for the touched module
Use those instructions to distinguish real issues from intentional local patterns.
Step 2: Launch Four Review Sub-Agents in Parallel
Use Codex sub-agents when the scope is large enough for parallel review to help. For a tiny diff or one very small file, it is acceptable to review locally instead.
When spawning sub-agents:
give each sub-agent the same scope
tell each sub-agent to inspect only its assigned review role
ask for concise, structured findings only
ask each sub-agent to report file, line or symbol, problem, recommended fix, and confidence
Use four review roles.
Sub-Agent 1: Code Reuse Review
Review the changes for reuse opportunities:
Search for existing helpers, utilities, or shared abstractions that already solve the same problem.
Flag duplicated functions or near-duplicate logic introduced in the change.
Flag inline logic that should call an existing helper instead of re-implementing it.
Recommended sub-agent role: explorer for broad codebase lookup, or reviewer if a stronger review pass is more useful than wide search.
Sub-Agent 2: Code Quality Review
Review the same changes for code quality issues:
Redundant state, cached values, or derived values stored unnecessarily
Parameter sprawl caused by threading new arguments through existing call chains
Copy-paste with slight variation that should become a shared abstraction
Leaky abstractions or ownership violations across module boundaries
Stringly-typed values where existing typed contracts, enums, or constants already exist
Recommended sub-agent role: reviewer
Sub-Agent 3: Efficiency Review
Review the same changes for efficiency issues:
Repeated work, duplicate reads, duplicate API calls, or unnecessary recomputation
Sequential work that could safely run concurrently
New work added to startup, render, request, or other hot paths without clear need
Pre-checks for existence when the operation itself can be attempted directly and errors handled
Memory growth, missing cleanup, or listener/subscription leaks
Overly broad reads or scans when the code only needs a subset
Recommended sub-agent role: reviewer
Sub-Agent 4: Clarity and Standards Review
Review the same changes for clarity, local standards, and balance:
Violations of local project conventions or module patterns
Unnecessary complexity, deep nesting, weak names, or redundant comments
Overly compact or clever code that reduces readability
Over-simplification that collapses separate concerns into one unclear unit
Dead code, dead abstractions, or indirection without value
Recommended sub-agent role: reviewer
Only report issues that materially improve maintainability, correctness, or cost. Do not churn code just to make it look different.
Step 3: Aggregate Findings
Wait for all review sub-agents to complete, then merge their findings.
Normalize findings into this shape:
File and line or nearest symbol
Category: reuse, quality, efficiency, or clarity
Why it is a problem
Recommended fix
Confidence: high, medium, or low
Discard weak, duplicative, or instruction-conflicting findings before editing.
Step 4: Fix Issues Carefully
In review-only mode, stop after reporting findings.
In safe-fixes or fix-and-validate mode:
Apply only high-confidence, behavior-preserving fixes
Skip subjective refactors that need product or architectural judgment
Preserve local patterns when they are intentional or instruction-backed
Keep edits scoped to the reviewed files unless a small adjacent change is required to complete the fix correctly
Prefer fixes like:
replacing duplicated code with an existing helper
removing redundant state or dead code
simplifying control flow without changing behavior
narrowing overly broad operations
renaming unclear locals when the scope is contained
Do not stage, commit, or push changes as part of this skill.
Step 5: Validate When Required
In fix-and-validate mode, run the smallest relevant validation for the touched scope after edits.
Examples:
targeted tests for the touched module
typecheck or compile for the touched target
formatter or lint check if that is the project's real safety gate
Prefer fast, scoped validation over full-suite runs unless the change breadth justifies more.
If validation is skipped because the user asked not to run it, say so explicitly.
Step 6: Summarize Outcome
Close with a brief result:
what was reviewed
what was fixed, if anything
what was intentionally left alone
whether validation ran
If the code is already clean for this rubric, say that directly instead of manufacturing edits.
Limitations
Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.
