跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

ce-simplify-code

Review and simplify code while preserving its behavior. Check readability, reuse, and efficiency, assess whether tests and comments add value, and verify applied changes with the project's configured checks before review.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

原文查看原文说明

Simplify code for clarity, reuse, quality, and efficiency while preserving behavior, and prune tests and comments that carry no value. Use after implementation and before review, or to audit tests or comments in any part of a repo; use ce-debug for bugs.

查看安装方法

适用场景

  • Cleaning up code after implementation
  • Improving readability before code review
  • Auditing tests for practical value
  • Reviewing redundant or unhelpful comments

包含的文件(8)

  • SKILL.md7.3 KB
  • references/personas/code-quality-reviewer.md2.4 KB
  • references/personas/code-reuse-reviewer.md1.2 KB
  • references/personas/comment-reviewer.md2.7 KB
  • references/personas/efficiency-reviewer.md1.1 KB
  • references/personas/test-value-reviewer.md3.2 KB
  • references/reviewer-dispatch.md1.1 KB
  • references/standalone-report.md2.7 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

Simplify code for clarity, reuse, quality, and efficiency, and prune tests and comments that carry no value, while preserving exact behavior. Prioritize readable, explicit code over compact code — fewer lines is not the goal.

Mode

Strip a mode:pipeline token and every proof-test:<path> token from the input before reading the rest as the scope. The proof-test path is context for Step 3, never scope; a caller may pass several.

  • Pipeline when mode:pipeline is present, or when no one asked for this run in their own current message: a step of another skill, or a run the agent starts itself, such as at a completion boundary. Work only on the current work, apply fixes without asking or waiting, and return the Step 5 summary to the caller. That summary is for the caller's record; never paste it into a commit, PR body, or other artifact.
  • Standalone when the user's own current message asked for this run. Their request sets the scope and focus. Report findings before editing anything, unless the request says to just fix them. Read references/standalone-report.md now, and again before applying any reported finding.

Step 1: Identify scope

Resolve the scope in this order:

  1. User-named scope is authoritative; do not widen it. In standalone mode it may be the whole repo, an area, or a path.
  2. Otherwise, in git, use the current branch versus its base. Without a usable base, use staged and unstaged changes (git diff HEAD).
  3. Outside git or without a diff, use files the user named or that were edited earlier in the conversation.

In pipeline mode the scope is what the caller passed, else the branch diff. Within it, prune only tests and comments the current work added or changed.

If none of the above produces a non-empty scope, pipeline mode reports "nothing to simplify" and returns. Standalone mode asks the user what to simplify, as references/standalone-report.md describes.

Preflight. If the scope has no substantive human-authored code — only documentation, generated or vendored files, dependencies or lockfiles, or mechanical churn — report that there is nothing to simplify and stop without reviewers. For mixed scopes, retain only the code and its tests. This check is about the kind of change, never its size: explicit small scopes still run, and any size or cost threshold is the caller's to set.

When the platform's task-tracking capability is available, show the review, apply, and verification outcomes without creating one task per reviewer. Otherwise continue without simulating a task list in chat.

Step 2: Launch review agents in parallel

Dispatch generic subagents via the platform's subagent primitive (Agent/Task in Claude Code, spawn_agent in Codex) where available; otherwise run the reviews inline or serially. For each reviewer, read its prompt asset from this skill's directory and pass the full file content as the subagent's prompt, together with the resolved scope (the full diff or file set), the mode, any proof test, the user's constraints, and the project standards governing the scope (or their file paths):

  • references/personas/code-reuse-reviewer.md
  • references/personas/code-quality-reviewer.md
  • references/personas/efficiency-reviewer.md
  • references/personas/test-value-reviewer.md, when the scope holds tests
  • references/personas/comment-reviewer.md, when the scope holds comments

A standalone request about only tests or only comments runs only that reviewer.

Do not paraphrase these rubrics from memory. Read each file and pass it verbatim, or the reviewer loses the rules that keep the pass behavior-preserving.

Read references/reviewer-dispatch.md before dispatching; it covers a full harness, releasing review agents, and the permission mode.

Model selection. Use the platform's balanced mid-tier model for these reviewers when the current harness exposes a known override. In Claude Code this is the Sonnet class. In Codex, apply this tier only when the active dispatch primitive exposes an explicit model or custom-agent selector; task wording alone does not select a different model. Otherwise omit the override and inherit the parent model -- a working pass on the parent model beats a broken dispatch.

Step 3: Fix issues

Proceed only after every review outcome is complete, whether returned by subagents or produced inline. In standalone mode, unless the request says to just fix them, report and stop here. Otherwise apply worthwhile findings directly; record false positives and low-value findings as skipped without asking the user.

Inspect beyond the resolved scope when needed to evaluate a finding, but edit only that scope and the import/export lines it needs. For a user-named file or directory scope, those import/export lines must also be inside it; skip any fix that would edit outside the mutation boundary.

Each fix must preserve outputs, errors, side effects, and ordering. If that cannot be established, skip it.

Never simplify away a safety check. Preserve trust-boundary validation, data-loss protection, security checks, and accessibility affordances. Skip any finding that would thin or remove one.

Protect the proof tests. In pipeline mode, each test the current work relied on to show its change works stays exactly as it is: every proof-test: path, else the tests the session's evidence names. Skip any finding from any reviewer that would delete, weaken, rename, move, merge, or rewrite one, or remove or rename the test-only code it calls. Behavior-preserving changes to the production code it exercises still apply. When you cannot tell which tests those are, delete or rewrite none of the tests the current work added or changed.

Honor caller-passed structure pins. A plan path passed with the structure-pin constraint is context, not scope. Preserve its session-settled: Key Technical Decisions, including deliberate duplication or separation.

Step 4: Verify behavior is preserved

Run project-wide typecheck and lint. Run tests matched to blast radius: scoped tests for local changes, broader tests for shared or wide-reach changes, and the full suite when the runner cannot scope tests.

Report failures with the check name and relevant output. Fix simplification-caused failures or revert the responsible change. Never weaken or remove a test to make a check pass. A test is removed only as a test-value finding, and any remaining tests that finding named must still pass afterwards.

If no test suite, lint, or typecheck is configured, state that explicitly in the summary; do not silently skip verification.

Step 5: Summarize

Summarize what was already sound and what improved. Report applied counts by reuse, quality, efficiency, tests, and comments; skipped count; check outcomes; and any comment kept because its constraint could not be encoded. If nothing changed, say so. Do not use net lines removed as the success metric. In pipeline mode this summary ends the skill, not the turn: the caller's next step follows it.

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

Monitor an open GitHub pull request over time, respond to review feedback, and address automated check failures. Apply and push fixes, then report whether it appears ready to merge or what still blocks progress.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Monitoring a pull request until it appears ready to merge
  • Addressing review feedback as it arrives
  • Handling automated check failures during review
EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin2.6万2026年10月19日 更新

Develop independent solutions to a defined problem, compare them against shared requirements, and combine useful contributions into a coherent recommendation. An independent assessment and evidence checks support the selection, while unresolved tradeoffs and verification needs remain explicit.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Comparing concrete solutions to a defined problem
  • Developing rough options before choosing an approach
  • Comparing architectural or product proposals
EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin2.6万2026年10月19日 更新

Turn a vague feature idea into clear requirements through dialogue. Define what to build, its scope, and success criteria, then capture the result in a short chat summary or a requirements document ready for implementation planning.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Clarifying a vague feature idea
  • Narrowing the scope of an ambitious improvement
  • Documenting requirements before implementation planning
EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin2.6万2026年10月19日 更新

Review code changes or a pull request for bugs, effects on existing behavior, test gaps, and project standards. Receive findings supported by the code and a clear account of review coverage, with local fixes available when explicitly requested.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Reviewing a pull request before release
  • Checking changes for bugs and test gaps
  • Applying review findings locally
EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin2.6万2026年10月19日 更新

ce-commit

免费

Save working changes as local Git commits with messages that explain the outcome. Follow the project's commit style, select files explicitly, and split clearly separate changes into a few logical commits when appropriate.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Saving completed work as a local commit
  • Writing messages that explain the outcome
  • Separating unrelated changes into commits
EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin2.6万2026年10月19日 更新

Commit and push code changes, then open a pull request with a clear title and description. You can also draft or update PR descriptions and hand published requests to the follow-up monitoring workflow.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Committing changes and opening a pull request
  • Drafting only a PR title and description
  • Updating an existing PR description
EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin2.6万2026年10月19日 更新

查看 EveryInc 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题