Revanced ponytail review
Skill ChloeVPin/revanced-ponytail/skills/revanced-ponytail-review
Review a diff for over-engineering only. Find what to delete or replace with stdlib, native, or house patterns. One line per finding. Use when the user says "review for over-engineering", "what can we delete", "simplify review", "revanced-ponytail-review", or "/revanced-ponytail-review". Complements correctness review. This skill only hunts complexity.From its SKILL.md
npx -y skills add ChloeVPin/revanced-ponytail --skill revanced-ponytail-reviewAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
2 things to look at
- 21 days oldThe repository was created 21 days ago. New is not bad, but a brand new repository carrying a familiar-sounding name is the shape a typosquat arrives in, and there has been no time for anyone else to find a problem with it.
- 0 stars0 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its file declares
Copied from the file, not written here
The file declares its own license as MIT. That is the author’s claim about this one file, and it is not the same thing as the license GitHub reports for the repository, which is listed with the other numbers below.
SKILL.md
2.4 KB, 463 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
revanced-ponytail-review
Review diffs for unnecessary complexity. Prefer a shorter correct diff.
Format
One line per finding:
L<line>: <tag> <what>. <replacement>.
Multi-file:
<file>:L<line>: <tag> <what>. <replacement>.
Tags
delete:Dead code, unused flexibility, speculative feature. Replacement: nothing.stdlib:Hand-rolled code the standard library already provides. Name the function.native:Dependency or code that the platform already provides. Name the feature. Only if product requirements still match.yagni:Abstraction with one implementation, config nobody sets, layer with one caller, and no second consumer planned in the ticket.shrink:Same logic, fewer clear lines. Show the shorter form.house:Change that fights existing repo architecture. Say how to match house style instead.keep:Complexity that is a non-cut (security, validation, a11y, stated requirement). Do not list as delete.
Examples
Bad: "This validator might be more complex than necessary."
Good: L12-38: stdlib: 27-line email class. Use a one-line pre-check if confirmation mail is the real validation.
Good: L4: native: date library for one field. <input type="date"> if single date and chrome is OK.
Good: repo.py:L88: yagni: AbstractRepository with one implementation. Inline until a second consumer exists.
Good: L52: keep: path traversal check at trust boundary. Not bloat.
Scoring
End with: net: -<N> lines possible.
If nothing to cut: Lean already. Ship.
Boundaries
- Scope: over-engineering only.
- Correctness bugs, security holes, and performance tuning are out of scope. Route them to a normal review.
- Do not flag one focused test or a valid debt marker as bloat.
- Do not apply fixes. List them only.
- One-shot unless the user asks to apply items.
- "stop ponytail" or "normal mode": revert to normal review style.
What ships with it
Read from the repository
Just SKILL.md. No reference files, no scripts.