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/issue-fix-code/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/issue-fix-code)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/apokamo/kaji/issue-fix-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/apokamo/kaji/issue-fix-code/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/issue-fix-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/apokamo/kaji/issue-fix-code.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 | $0.00038 | $0.02036 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00814 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00407 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00204 |
Grade A, and why
issue-fix-code 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 — 206 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Issue Fix Code
実装に対するレビュー指摘事項に基づき、修正対応を行います。 指摘を盲目的に受け入れるのではなく、技術的な妥当性を検討し、必要な修正と反論を使い分けます。
いつ使うか
| タイミング | このスキルを使用 |
|---|---|
/issue-review-code で Changes Requested 後 |
✅ 必須 |
| 人間からのレビューコメントへの対応 | ✅ 使用可 |
ワークフロー内の位置: implement → review-code → (fix → verify) → 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） |
issue_ref |
str | 人間可読の Issue 参照（GitHub では #<issue_id>） |
step_id |
str | 現在のステップ ID |
条件付きで注入される変数:
| 変数 | 型 | 条件 | 説明 |
|---|---|---|---|
previous_verdict |
str | resume 指定ステップ |
前ステップの verdict |
cycle_count |
int | サイクル内ステップのみ | 現在のイテレーション番号 |
max_iterations |
int | サイクル内ステップのみ | 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 #<issue_id> を導出する。
前提知識の読み込み
以下のドキュメントを Read ツールで読み込んでから作業を開始すること。
- 開発ワークフロー:
docs/dev/development_workflow.md - テスト規約:
docs/dev/testing-convention.md - Python スタイル:
docs/reference/python/python-style.md（必要に応じて他のdocs/reference/python/*.mdも追加読込）
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
実行手順
Step 1: コンテキスト取得
-
_shared/worktree-resolve.md の手順に従い、Worktree の絶対パスを取得。
-
レビュー結果の取得:
- コンテキスト変数
previous_verdictが存在する場合はそれを確認（ハーネス経由） - 存在しない場合は Issue コメントから最新のレビュー結果を取得（手動実行時）
- コンテキスト変数
-
レビュー内容の取得:
kaji issue view [issue_id] --comments最新の「コードレビュー結果」を取得。
-
現状把握: 指摘されている該当コード周辺を確認。
Step 2: 対応方針の検討
各指摘事項について、以下の基準で1つずつ検討してください。
- A: 対応する (Agree)
- 指摘が正しく、修正により品質・安全性が向上する場合。
- 改善提案 (Should Fix) の場合:
- メリットが明確な場合は積極的に採用
- 大規模なリファクタリングを伴う場合や高リスクな場合は見送り可
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 Changed f4429c660a1c
- 29d ago Changed 96fb6b86a0b0
- 1mo ago First seen · 206 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A 03c64f5d5be4
issue-fix-code is a skill published in the GitHub repository apokamo/kaji (15 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 38 tokens to every session and 2,036 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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.
github-pr-workflow
Prepare a GitHub pull request from a feature branch — branch hygiene, commit shape, title/body, verification notes, screenshots for UI work, and replies to review comments.