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/incident-verify/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/incident-verify)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/apokamo/kaji/incident-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/apokamo/kaji/incident-verify/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/incident-verify"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/apokamo/kaji/incident-verify.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Agent Snooping · line 28 Skill enumerates or reads other installed skills. Access to other skills' SKILL.md files or the skills directory reveals prompt instructions, capabilities, and secrets that should be invisible to peer skills.Fix: Remove all code or instructions that list or read other skills' files or directories. Skills should operate independently; cross-skill access is a privilege escalation.
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 | $0.00069 | $0.01155 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00034 | $0.00577 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00231 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00115 |
Grade A, and why
incident-verify 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 10d 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 — 97 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Incident Verify（確認）
修正後の調査 artifact について、既出指摘が解消されたかのみを確認する。
重要: このスキルは「指摘が適切に解消されたか」のみを確認する。新規の指摘は行わない。 これはレビューサイクルの収束を保証するため（
issue-verify-code/issue-verify-designと同じ収束規則）。
ワークフロー内の位置: fix → verify →（PASS: report / RETRY: fix）
入力
| 変数 | 型 | 説明 |
|---|---|---|
issue_id |
str | 対象インシデントイシュー ID |
issue_ref |
str | 人間可読の Issue 参照 |
step_id |
str | 現在のステップ ID |
cycle_count / max_iterations |
int | サイクル内ステップのため注入される |
手動実行時は $ARGUMENTS 第 1 トークンを issue_id とする。
共通ルール
.claude/skills/incident-investigate/SKILL.md § 全 incident-* skill 共通ルールに従う。
verify と review の違い
| 項目 | review | verify |
|---|---|---|
| 目的 | 反証・独立検証を伴うフル査読 | 既出指摘の解消確認のみ |
| 新規指摘 | する | しない |
| 確認範囲 | 調査 artifact 全体 | 前回指摘箇所のみ |
実行手順
Step 1: 指摘と対応の取得
artifact root を解決する（共通ルール参照。以降のパスはこの絶対 root 基準）:
ART="$(kaji config artifacts-dir)"
kaji issue view [issue_id] --comments
直近の査読結果コメント（指摘 N）と、直近の fix 対応表を突き合わせる。
さらに、調査 artifact 本体（$ART/[issue_id]/investigation/report.md）を必ず再読込する。
fix コメントの主張だけで解消判定してはならない。fix が「citation を追加した / conclusion を
見直した」と報告していても、artifact 本体に実際に反映されているかを本文で確認する
（未反映のまま report へ進むと stale な報告が最終提案として publish される）。
Step 2: 解消確認
指摘 N ごとに「解消 / 未解消 / 反論受理」を判定する。
- 解消: 修正内容が指摘意図を満たす（追加 citation・再現結果が受理基準を満たす等）。
かつ artifact 本体（
report.md）に該当修正が実在すること。fix コメントの主張と artifact 本文が食い違う場合は 未解消 とする。 - 未解消: 修正が不十分 / 意図と異なる / fix 報告と artifact 本文が不一致。
- 反論受理: fix の反論が技術的に妥当（根拠が明確・論理に飛躍なし）→ 指摘取り下げ。
新規指摘はしない。確認中に前回指摘以外の問題を見つけた場合は、判定に含めず参考情報として記録する
（_shared/report-unrelated-issues.md）。
Step 3: 確認結果のコメント投稿
チェックリスト形式（指摘 N ごと）でコメント投稿する。verdict マーカーを無条件付与する。
kaji issue comment [issue_id] --commit \
--verdict-step verify --verdict-status <STATUS> \
--body-file <確認結果 markdown>
Verdict 出力
---VERDICT--- status: PASS reason: | 全指摘の解消 / 反論受理を確認した evidence: | 指摘 1..N をチェックリストで確認。未解消 0 件 suggestion: | ---END_VERDICT---
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 97 lines · 69 tokens per session scan A b9c6e97d7bef
incident-verify is a skill published in the GitHub repository apokamo/kaji (12 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 69 tokens to every session and 1,155 once invoked, about $0.0003 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.