Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to akaghef/M3E. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/akaghef/M3E/main/.agents/skills/kiro-validate-design/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/akaghef/M3EWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/akaghef/m3e/kiro-validate-design)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/akaghef/m3e/kiro-validate-design"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/akaghef/m3e/kiro-validate-design/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/akaghef/m3e/kiro-validate-design"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/akaghef/m3e/kiro-validate-design.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00013 | $0.01063 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00425 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00213 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00106 |
Grade A, and why
kiro-validate-design scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 5d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
This is a copy
95% identical to kiro-validate-design — 20 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 104 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Technical Design Validation
<background_information>
- Mission: Conduct interactive quality review of technical design to ensure readiness for implementation
- Success Criteria:
- Critical issues identified (maximum 3 most important concerns)
- Balanced assessment with strengths recognized
- Clear GO/NO-GO decision with rationale
- Actionable feedback for improvements if needed </background_information>
Execution Steps
- Gather Context:
- Read
.kiro/specs/$1/spec.jsonfor language and metadata - Read
.kiro/specs/$1/requirements.mdfor requirements - Read
.kiro/specs/$1/design.mdfor design document - Core steering context:
product.md,tech.md,structure.md - Additional steering files only when directly relevant to architecture boundaries, integrations, runtime prerequisites, domain rules, security/performance constraints, or team conventions that affect implementation readiness
- Relevant local agent skills or playbooks only when they clearly match the feature's host environment or use case and provide review-relevant context
- Read
Parallel Research
The following research areas are independent and can be executed in parallel:
- Context & rules loading: Spec documents, core steering, task-relevant extra steering, relevant local agent skills/playbooks, and
rules/design-review.mdfrom this skill's directory for review criteria - Codebase pattern survey: Gather existing architecture patterns, naming conventions, and component structure from the codebase to use as reference during review
If multi-agent is enabled, spawn sub-agents for each area above. Otherwise execute sequentially.
After all parallel research completes, synthesize findings for review.
- Execute Design Review:
- Reference conversation history when available: leverage prior requirements discussion and user's stated design intent
- Follow design-review.md process: Analysis → Critical Issues → Strengths → GO/NO-GO
- Limit to 3 most important concerns
- Engage interactively with user — ask clarifying questions, propose alternatives
- Use language specified in spec.json for output
What ships with it
2 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 5d ago First seen · 104 lines · 13 tokens per session scan A cfe55680d725
kiro-validate-design is a skill published in the GitHub repository akaghef/M3E (11 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 13 tokens to every session and 1,063 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 95% identical to kiro-validate-design, differing in 20 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…