Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to apokamo/kaji. 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/apokamo/kaji/main/.claude/skills/i-dev-final-check/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/apokamo/kajiWrote 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/apokamo/kaji/i-dev-final-check)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/apokamo/kaji/i-dev-final-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/apokamo/kaji/i-dev-final-check.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00042 | $0.04986 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00021 | $0.02493 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00997 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00499 |
Grade A, and why
i-dev-final-check 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 8d 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 352 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
I Dev Final Check
dev workflow の PR 前最終ゲート。 前段で作られた証跡を集約し、必要なら docs 更新や設計書昇格を行ったうえで、PR に進めるか判定する。
いつ使うか
| タイミング | このスキルを使用 |
|---|---|
/issue-review-code または /issue-verify-code で Approve 後 |
✅ 必須 |
| dev workflow の PR 作成前 | ✅ 必須 |
ワークフロー内の位置: implement → review-code → i-dev-final-check → i-pr → close
入力
ハーネス経由（コンテキスト変数）
常に注入される変数:
| 変数 | 型 | 説明 |
|---|---|---|
issue_id |
str | 正規化済み Issue ID（GitHub 数値または local ID） |
issue_ref |
str | 人間可読の Issue 参照（GitHub では #<issue_id>、local では bare ID） |
step_id |
str | 現在のステップ ID |
手動実行（スラッシュコマンド）
$ARGUMENTS = <issue_id>
解決ルール
コンテキスト変数 issue_id が存在すればそちらを使用。
なければ $ARGUMENTS の第1引数を issue_id として使用。
issue_ref はハーネス経由ではプロンプトに自動注入される（prompt.py 側で provider 別に整形）。手動実行時は issue_id から導出する: GitHub 数値 ID なら #<issue_id>、local-* 形式なら bare ID（# を付けない）。
前提知識の読み込み
- docs/dev/development_workflow.md
- docs/dev/workflow_completion_criteria.md
- docs/dev/documentation_update_criteria.md
- docs/dev/shared_skill_rules.md
docs/README.md- _shared/promote-design.md
共通ルール
- _shared/report-unrelated-issues.md — 作業中に発見した無関係な問題の報告ルール
実施内容
- worktree と branch を解決する
- 前段の証跡を集約し、事後確認を除く Issue 完了条件との照合を行う
- 設計書の「影響ドキュメント」と実差分を確認する
- 品質ゲートを実行する（後述 Step 4 詳細）
- docs 更新の最終確認を行い、必要なら修正する
- 設計書昇格判定 → 必要なら昇格、または既存 docs 更新の有無を確認する
- Issue 本文の完了条件を照合し、
### ワークフロー完了後の確認項目を除く充足状態を更新する 7.5. 設計書を Issue 本文の NOTE ブロック直下に添付する - Issue に最終チェック結果をコメントする
Step 2 詳細: 前段証跡の集約と完了条件照合
2-1. 前段コメントの走査
kaji issue view [issue_id] --comments
以下の完了報告コメントが存在するか確認する:
| ステップ | 期待するコメント | 必須の内容 |
|---|---|---|
issue-design |
「設計書作成完了」 | 設計書パス、テスト戦略、影響ドキュメント |
issue-review-design |
「設計レビュー結果」 | Approve / Changes Requested 判定 |
issue-fix-design → issue-verify-design |
（経由した場合のみ）「修正確認結果」 | Approve 判定 |
issue-implement |
「実装完了報告」 | pytest 出力（S/M/L 結果）、品質チェック結果 |
issue-review-code |
「コードレビュー結果」 | Approve / Changes Requested 判定、独立テスト実行結果 |
issue-fix-code → issue-verify-code |
（経由した場合のみ）「修正確認結果」 | Approve 判定 |
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 352 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A c99eba11a812
i-dev-final-check is a skill published in the GitHub repository apokamo/kaji (12 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 4,986 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
software-development-norms
Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring code in any language to apply industrial-grade development norms abstracted from the Alibaba Java Development Handbook. Covers naming, type safety, exceptions, logging, concurrency, databases, project structure, testing, and security with language-agnostic principles and…
software-development-pragmatic-programmer
Apply meta-principles of software craftsmanship: DRY, orthogonality, tracer bullets, and design by contract. Use when the user mentions "best practices", "pragmatic approach", "broken windows", "tracer bullet", "software craftsmanship", "technical debt prevention", "prototype vs tracer bullet", or "code ownership".…
software-design-patterns-and-refactoring
Use when architecture or backend work needs pre-code structural guidance from design patterns, or post-code cleanup guidance from refactoring and code-smell-driven improvement.
superpowers-verification-before-completion
Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs - requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims; evidence before assertions always.
superpowers-receiving-code-review
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation.
cw-slice
Use before writing code for any Codewhale feature, upgrade, or refactor: find the existing owner of the behavior, bound the change to one reviewable slice, and fix the evidence bar before you start.