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-doc-review/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-doc-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/apokamo/kaji/i-doc-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/apokamo/kaji/i-doc-review/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/apokamo/kaji/i-doc-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/apokamo/kaji/i-doc-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 | $0.00037 | $0.01122 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00561 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00224 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00112 |
Grade A, and why
i-doc-review 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 11d 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 — 111 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
I Doc Review
重要: このスキルは更新を行ったセッションとは別のセッションで実行することを推奨します。
CRITICAL: このレビューの目的は文章を整えることではない。現行実装との差異、古い手順、誤誘導となる記述を発見すること。
docs-only の変更をレビューする。新規指摘を行ってよい。
いつ使うか
| タイミング | このスキルを使用 |
|---|---|
i-doc-update 完了後 |
✅ 必須 |
ワークフロー内の位置: update-doc → review-doc → (fix-doc → verify-doc) → i-doc-final-check → i-pr
入力
ハーネス経由（コンテキスト変数）
| 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 |
cycle_count |
int | 現在のイテレーション |
max_iterations |
int | サイクルの上限回数 |
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
実行手順
Step 1: コンテキストの取得
- _shared/worktree-resolve.md の手順に従い、Worktree の絶対パスを取得
- Issue コメントから直近の docs-only 更新報告を確認
- 設計書を確認:
cat [worktree_dir]/draft/design/issue-[issue_id]-*.md - 差分を確認:
cd [worktree_dir] && git diff main...HEAD
Step 2: レビュー
docs/dev/documentation_update_criteria.md の 3 観点（事実整合性・実装整合性・運用整合性）で厳格にレビューする。
- 現行実装と一致しているか
- CLI コマンド例が現行仕様と一致するか
AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.mdの運用方針と矛盾しないか- workflow / skill / docs 間で記述が矛盾しないか
- リンク切れ、古いパス、読者導線の破綻がないか
Step 3: 変更ファイル限定リンクチェック
変更された Markdown ファイルに絞って以下を実行する。
cd [worktree_dir] && python3 scripts/check_doc_links.py [changed-markdown-files...]
Step 4: 結果を Issue にコメント
Must Fix / Should Fix を整理して Issue にコメントする。
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 111 lines · 37 tokens per session scan A 820f351cab6a
i-doc-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository apokamo/kaji (12 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 1,122 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.