code-simplification
Simplifies code for clarity. Use when refactoring code for clarity without changing behavior. Use when code works but is harder to read, maintain, or extend than it should be. Use when reviewing code that has accumulated unnecessary complexity.
- Installs
- 63.6K
- Last 24h
- +772
- Trending rank
- #435
- Security
- Pass
Install
Works with every agent the skills CLI supports.
npx skills add https://github.com/addyosmani/agent-skills --skill code-simplification- 01
Install
Run the command in your project. The CLI asks which agents to install for.
- 02
Describe the task
Ask your agent for something this skill covers. It loads code-simplification automatically when relevant.
- 03
Review the result
The agent follows the SKILL.md steps, scripts and references bundled with the skill.
Security audits
Independent scans of the skill's instructions and bundled files.
SKILL.md
The instructions your agent reads when the skill is triggered.
Code Simplification
Inspired by the Claude Code Simplifier plugin. Adapted here as a model-agnostic, process-driven skill for any AI coding agent.
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?"
When to Use
- After a feature is working and tests pass, but the implementation feels heavier than it needs to be
- During code review when readability or complexity issues are flagged
- When you encounter deeply nested logic, long functions, or unclear names
- When refactoring code written under time pressure
- When consolidating related logic scattered across files
- After merging changes that introduced duplication or inconsistency
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
Simplification that breaks project consistency is not simplification — it's churn.
3. Prefer Clarity Over Cleverness
Explicit code is better than compact code when the compact version requires a mental pause to parse.
// UNCLEAR: Dense ternary chain
const label = isNew ? 'New' : isUpdated ? 'Updated' : isArchived ? 'Archived' : 'Active';
// CLEAR: Readable mapping
function getStatusLabel(item: Item): string {
if (item.isNew) return 'New';
if (item.isUpdated) return 'Updated';
if (item.isArchived) return 'Archived';
return 'Active';
}
// UNCLEAR: Chained reduces with inline logic
const result = items.reduce((acc, item) => ({
...acc,
[item.id]: { ...acc[item.id], count: (acc[item.id]?.count ?? 0) + 1 }
}), {});
// CLEAR: Named intermediate step
const countById = new Map<string, number>();
for (const item of items) {
countById.set(item.id, (countById.get(item.id) ?? 0) + 1);
}
4. Maintain Balance
Simplification has a failure mode: over-simplification. Watch for these traps:
- Inlining too aggressively — removing a helper that gave a concept a name makes the call site harder to read
- Combining unrelated logic — two simple functions merged into one complex function is not simpler
- Removing "unnecessary" abstraction — some abstractions exist for extensibility or testability, not complexity
- Optimizing for line count — fewer lines is not the goal; easier comprehension is
5. Scope to What Changed
Default to simplifying recently modified code. Avoid drive-by refactors of unrelated code unless explicitly asked to broaden scope. Unscoped simplification creates noise in diffs and risks unintended regressions.
The Simplification Process
Step 1: Understand Before Touching (Chesterton's Fence)
Before changing or removing anything, understand why it exists. This is Chesterton's Fence: if you see a fence across a road and don't understand why it's there, don't tear it down. First understand the reason, then decide if the reason still applies.
BEFORE SIMPLIFYING, ANSWER:
- What is this code's responsibility?
- What calls it? What does it call?
- What are the edge cases and error paths?
- Are there tests that define the expected behavior?
- Why might it have been written this way? (Performance? Platform constraint? Historical reason?)
- Check git blame: what was the original context for this code?
If you can't answer these, you're not ready to simplify. Read more context first.
Step 2: Identify Simplification Opportunities
Scan for these patterns — each one is a concrete signal, not a vague smell:
Structural complexity:
| Pattern | Signal | Simplification |
|---|---|---|
| Deep nesting (3+ levels) | Hard to follow control flow | Extract conditions into guard clauses or helper functions |
| Long functions (50+ lines) | Multiple responsibilities | Split into focused functions with descriptive names |
| Nested ternaries | Requires mental stack to parse | Replace with if/else chains, switch, or lookup objects |
| Boolean parameter flags | doThing(true, false, true) | Replace with options objects or separate functions |
| Repeated conditionals | Same if check in multiple places | Extract to a well-named predicate function |
Naming and readability:
| Pattern | Signal | Simplification |
|---|---|---|
| Generic names | data, result, temp, val, item | Rename to describe the content: userProfile, validationErrors |
| Abbreviated names | usr, cfg, btn, evt | Use full words unless the abbreviation is universal (id, url, api) |
| Misleading names | Function named get that also mutates state | Rename to reflect actual behavior |
| Comments explaining "what" | // increment counter above count++ | Delete the comment — the code is clear enough |
| Comments explaining "why" | // Retry because the API is flaky under load | Keep these — they carry intent the code can't express |
Redundancy:
| Pattern | Signal | Simplification |
|---|---|---|
| Duplicated logic | Same 5+ lines in multiple places | Extract to a shared function |
| Dead code | Unreachable branches, unused variables, commented-out blocks | Remove (after confirming it's truly dead) |
| Unnecessary abstractions | Wrapper that adds no value | Inline the wrapper, call the underlying function directly |
| Over-engineered patterns | Factory-for-a-factory, strategy-with-one-strategy | Replace with the simple direct approach |
| Redundant type assertions | Casting to a type that's already inferred | Remove the assertion |
Step 3: Apply Changes Incrementally
Make one simplification at a time. Run tests after each change. Submit refactoring changes separately from feature or bug fix changes. A PR that refactors and adds a feature is two PRs — split them.
FOR EACH SIMPLIFICATION:
1. Make the change
2. Run the test suite
3. If tests pass → commit (or continue to next simplification)
4. If tests fail → revert and reconsider
Avoid batching multiple simplifications into a single untested change. If something breaks, you need to know which simplification caused it.
The Rule of 500: If a refactoring would touch more than 500 lines, invest in automation (codemods, sed scripts, AST transforms) rather than making the changes by hand. Manual edits at that scale are error-prone and exhausting to review.
Step 4: Verify the Result
After all simplifications, step back and evaluate the whole:
COMPARE BEFORE AND AFTER:
- Is the simplified version genuinely easier to understand?
- Did you introduce any new patterns inconsistent with the codebase?
- Is the diff clean and reviewable?
- Would a teammate approve this change?
If the "simplified" version is harder to understand or review, revert. Not every simplification attempt succeeds.
Language-Specific Guidance
TypeScript / JavaScript
// SIMPLIFY: Unnecessary async wrapper
// Before
async function getUser(id: string): Promise<User> {
return await userService.findById(id);
}
// After
function getUser(id: string): Promise<User> {
return userService.findById(id);
}
// SIMPLIFY: Verbose conditional assignment
// Before
let displayName: string;
if (user.nickname) {
displayName = user.nickname;
} else {
displayName = user.fullName;
}
// After
const displayName = user.nickname || user.fullName;
// SIMPLIFY: Manual array building
// Before
const activeUsers: User[] = [];
for (const user of users) {
if (user.isActive) {
activeUsers.push(user);
}
}
// After
const activeUsers = users.filter((user) => user.isActive);
// SIMPLIFY: Redundant boolean return
// Before
function isValid(input: string): boolean {
if (input.length > 0 && input.length < 100) {
return true;
}
return false;
}
// After
function isValid(input: string): boolean {
return input.length > 0 && input.length < 100;
}
Python
# SIMPLIFY: Verbose dictionary building
# Before
result = {}
for item in items:
result[item.id] = item.name
# After
result = {item.id: item.name for item in items}
# SIMPLIFY: Nested conditionals with early return
# Before
def process(data):
if data is not None:
if data.is_valid():
if data.has_permission():
return do_work(data)
else:
raise PermissionError("No permission")
else:
raise ValueError("Invalid data")
else:
raise TypeError("Data is None")
# After
def process(data):
if data is None:
raise TypeError("Data is None")
if not data.is_valid():
raise ValueError("Invalid data")
if not data.has_permission():
raise PermissionError("No permission")
return do_work(data)
React / JSX
// SIMPLIFY: Verbose conditional rendering
// Before
function UserBadge({ user }: Props) {
if (user.isAdmin) {
return <Badge variant="admin">Admin</Badge>;
} else {
return <Badge variant="default">User</Badge>;
}
}
// After
function UserBadge({ user }: Props) {
const variant = user.isAdmin ? 'admin' : 'default';
const label = user.isAdmin ? 'Admin' : 'User';
return <Badge variant={variant}>{label}</Badge>;
}
// SIMPLIFY: Prop drilling through intermediate components
// Before — consider whether context or composition solves this better.
// This is a judgment call — flag it, don't auto-refactor.
Common Rationalizations
| Rationalization | Reality |
|---|---|
| "It's working, no need to touch it" | Working code that's hard to read will be hard to fix when it breaks. Simplifying now saves time on every future change. |
| "Fewer lines is always simpler" | A 1-line nested ternary is not simpler than a 5-line if/else. Simplicity is about comprehension speed, not line count. |
| "I'll just quickly simplify this unrelated code too" | Unscoped simplification creates noisy diffs and risks regressions in code you didn't intend to change. Stay focused. |
| "The types make it self-documenting" | Types document structure, not intent. A well-named function explains why better than a type signature explains what. |
| "This abstraction might be useful later" | Don't preserve speculative abstractions. If it's not used now, it's complexity without value. Remove it and re-add when needed. |
| "The original author must have had a reason" | Maybe. Check git blame — apply Chesterton's Fence. But accumulated complexity often has no reason; it's just the residue of iteration under pressure. |
| "I'll refactor while adding this feature" | Separate refactoring from feature work. Mixed changes are harder to review, revert, and understand in history. |
Red Flags
- Simplification that requires modifying tests to pass (you likely changed behavior)
- "Simplified" code that is longer and harder to follow than the original
- Renaming things to match your preferences rather than project conventions
- Removing error handling because "it makes the code cleaner"
- Simplifying code you don't fully understand
- Batching many simplifications into one large, hard-to-review commit
- Refactoring code outside the scope of the current task without being asked
Verification
After completing a simplification pass:
- All existing tests pass without modification
- Build succeeds with no new warnings
- Linter/formatter passes (no style regressions)
- Each simplification is a reviewable, incremental change
- The diff is clean — no unrelated changes mixed in
- Simplified code follows project conventions (checked against CLAUDE.md or equivalent)
- No error handling was removed or weakened
- No dead code was left behind (unused imports, unreachable branches)
- A teammate or review agent would approve the change as a net improvement
FAQ
What does the code-simplification skill do?
Simplifies code for clarity. Use when refactoring code for clarity without changing behavior. Use when code works but is harder to read, maintain, or extend than it should be. Use when reviewing code that has accumulated unnecessary complexity.
How do I install code-simplification?
Run npx skills add https://github.com/addyosmani/agent-skills --skill code-simplification in your project. The skills CLI detects the agents you use and copies the skill into the right folder. For Claude Code you can also place the skill folder at ~/.claude/skills/code-simplification/ (personal) or .claude/skills/code-simplification/ (project).
Which AI agents can use code-simplification?
Any agent that supports the open Agent Skills format (a folder with a SKILL.md file), including Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, GitHub Copilot, Gemini CLI, Windsurf, Cline, OpenCode and more.
Is code-simplification safe to install?
Security partners have reviewed it: Gen Agent Trust Hub passed; Socket passed; Snyk passed; Runlayer passed; ZeroLeaks passed. As with any skill, read the SKILL.md and bundled scripts before installing.
Who maintains code-simplification?
It is published by addyosmani in addyosmani/agent-skills. It has 63,577 recorded installs.
More from addyosmani/agent-skills
code-review-and-quality
addyosmani/agent-skills
Conducts multi-axis code review. Use before merging any change. Use when reviewing code written by yourself, another agent, or a human. Use when you need to assess code quality across multiple dimensions before it enters the main branch. Use when asked to review a diff or a pull request, even when the diff is pasted inline.
security-and-hardening
addyosmani/agent-skills
Hardens code against vulnerabilities. Use when auditing an input handler for vulnerabilities, when handling user input, authentication, data storage, or external integrations, or when checking a login flow is safe against the OWASP Top Ten. Use when building any feature that accepts untrusted data, manages user sessions, or interacts with third-party services. Use when auditing dependencies for known vulnerabilities, triaging package-manager audit findings, or assessing supply-chain risk in a new package. Use when personal data or privacy compliance (GDPR, CCPA) is involved.
frontend-ui-engineering
addyosmani/agent-skills
Builds production-quality, accessible, responsive user-facing UIs. Use when building or modifying interfaces and pages, creating components, implementing layouts, meeting WCAG accessibility requirements, managing state, or when the output needs to look and feel production-quality rather than AI-generated.
performance-optimization
addyosmani/agent-skills
Optimizes application performance across frontend, backend, queries, and databases. Use when performance requirements exist, when you suspect performance regressions, when Core Web Vitals or load times need improvement, when N+1 query patterns need fixing, or when profiling reveals bottlenecks.
spec-driven-development
addyosmani/agent-skills
Creates specs before coding. Use when starting a new project, feature, or significant change and no specification exists yet. Use when drafting a PRD or requirements document with objectives and scope, or when requirements are unclear, ambiguous, or only exist as a vague idea. Use when a single requirement spans several independently testable capabilities and needs decomposing into a capability map of modules before specifying.
planning-and-task-breakdown
addyosmani/agent-skills
Breaks work into ordered tasks. Use when you have a spec or clear requirements and need to break work into implementable tasks. Use when a task feels too large to start, when you need to estimate scope, or when parallel work is possible.
Popular ai & agents skills
google-agents-cli-publish
google/agents-cli
This skill should be used when the user wants to "publish an agent", "publish my ADK agent", "register an agent with Gemini", "publish to Gemini" (formerly Gemini Enterprise), or needs guidance on the agents-cli publish gemini command. Also use when the user wants to "manage agents in Agent Registry", "list/update/delete registered agents", or "register an MCP server". Covers ADK vs A2A registration modes, programmatic and interactive usage, flag reference, auto-detection from deployment metadata, Agent Registry fleet management, and troubleshooting. Part of the agents-cli skills suite. Do NOT use for deployment (use google-agents-cli-deploy).
google-agents-cli-eval
google/agents-cli
This skill should be used when the user wants to "run an evaluation", "evaluate my agent", "evaluate my ADK agent", "write an eval dataset", "analyze eval failures", "compare eval results", "optimize agent", or needs guidance on the Gemini platform eval methodology and the Quality Flywheel. Covers eval metrics, dataset schema, LLM-as-judge scoring, and common failure causes. Applies to any agents-cli project, whatever framework the agent is written in. Do NOT use for agent API code patterns (ADK: use google-agents-cli-adk-code), deployment (use google-agents-cli-deploy), or project scaffolding (use google-agents-cli-scaffold).
skill-creator
anthropics/skills
Create new skills, modify and improve existing skills, and measure skill performance. Use when users want to create a skill from scratch, edit, or optimize an existing skill, run evals to test a skill, benchmark skill performance with variance analysis, or optimize a skill's description for better triggering accuracy.
codex-pet
prime-skills/runcomfy-agent-skills
Codex Pet generator on RunComfy. Build a Codex-compatible Codex Pet spritesheet.webp + pet.json from a single reference image, drop it into ${CODEXHOME:-$HOME/.codex}/pets/ / and Codex picks it up as a custom Codex Pet next to the 8 built-ins. This skill produces the exact Codex Pet atlas Codex expects (1536x1872 PNG/WebP, 8 cols x 9 rows, 192x208 cells, 9 animation states — idle, running-right, running-left, waving, jumping, failed, waiting, running, review). Calls OpenAI GPT Image 2 edit ONCE via the local RunComfy CLI as runcomfy run openai/gpt-image-2/edit to produce a canonical Codex Pet pose, then assembles all 9 animation rows programmatically with ImageMagick micro-transforms — no Codex Pro, no $imagegen, no OPENAIAPIKEY required, only RUNCOMFYTOKEN. Triggers on "codex pet", "create codex pet", "make codex pet", "hatch codex pet", "/hatch image", "desktop pet codex", "codex pets", "spritesheet.webp", or any explicit ask to build a custom pet for OpenAI Codex.
full-output-enforcement
leonxlnx/taste-skill
Overrides default LLM truncation behavior. Enforces complete code generation, bans placeholder patterns, and handles token-limit splits cleanly. Apply to any task requiring exhaustive, unabridged output.
executing-plans
obra/superpowers
Use when executing an implementation plan in the current session as the implementer yourself — your human partner chose inline execution, or no subagent tool is available