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-review-ready/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-review-ready)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/apokamo/kaji/issue-review-ready"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/apokamo/kaji/issue-review-ready/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-review-ready"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/apokamo/kaji/issue-review-ready.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 | $0.00039 | $0.05182 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00019 | $0.02591 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.01036 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00518 |
Grade A, and why
issue-review-ready 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 — 313 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Issue Review Ready
Issue 本文が作業着手に足る記述品質を持つかをレビューする 全 workflow 共通のゲートスキル。
issue-create 後、issue-start の前に実行し、記載の矛盾・不足・根拠のない推測を指摘する。
いつ使うか
| タイミング | このスキルを使用 |
|---|---|
| Issue 作成後、作業着手前 | ✅ 必須 |
| 既に作業フェーズに入っている Issue | ❌ 不要 |
ワークフロー内の位置:
- dev workflow: create → review-ready → start → design → ...
- docs-only workflow: create → review-ready → start → i-doc-update → ...
worktree 不要（メインリポジトリから実行可能）。
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）。
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
- _shared/critical-decision-checklist.md — 人間の重要判断、AI の仮定、one-way door の分類と停止条件の正本。レビュー前に必ず読み込む
チェック観点
共通観点（全 type 共通）
| # | 観点 | 指摘対象 |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 構造の完備 | 概要・目的・完了条件の3セクションが存在し、空でない |
| 2 | 概要の具体性 | 「何を」「どこに」が特定できない曖昧な記述（対象モジュール・機能が不明） |
| 3 | 目的の根拠 | 背景・動機がない「〜したい」だけの記述、または想像・推測に基づく理由付け |
| 4 | 完了条件の検証可能性 | 客観的に判定不能な条件（「改善する」「最適化する」等の主観表現） |
| 5 | 1次情報の明示 | 事実として述べている内容に根拠がない。想像や勝手な予測が事実のように書かれている |
| 6 | 記述間の矛盾 | 概要と完了条件の不整合、目的と完了条件の乖離、スコープの暗黙的な膨張 |
| 7 | 作業スコープの推定可能性 | 作業対象の判断材料が本文にない |
| 14 | workflow 内判定可能性 | 通常完了条件に merge 後・実機適用後・外部応答後など workflow の RETRY で環境非依存に再現できない確認が混在している、または事後確認欄が ## 完了条件 の末尾サブセクションになっていない |
| 15 | 重要判断の着手可能性 | one-way door が人間未決、source of truth の指定・優先順位が矛盾、または AI が人間の判断を代行しなければ作業スコープや公開契約を確定できない |
観点 14 の分類基準は
docs/dev/workflow_completion_criteria.md
§ workflow 内完了条件と事後確認の分離を正本とする。誤分類は本文編集で修正可能なため
RETRY とし、ABORT にしない。
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 · 313 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A 7eba868cd4f2
issue-review-ready is a skill published in the GitHub repository apokamo/kaji (12 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 5,182 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-design-lifecycle-delivery
Use when an architect must decide which architecture lifecycle stage to enter next, route to the correct stage methodology skill, and apply the merged lifecycle backbone as one coherent delivery chain rather than as separate old and new skill systems.
gh-file-issue
Use when filing a new Codewhale GitHub issue: turn a bug or idea into a well-formed, actionable issue with repro, acceptance criteria, labels, and milestone.
gh-treasure-hunt
Hunt the issue/PR queue for highest value-over-risk wins: clean focused community PRs, already-implemented issues to close, safe quick-fixes.
gh-assign-issues
Use to assign GitHub issues to a milestone and/or owners in bulk, verifying each.
pm
Generate a PM through guided PM-focused interview with automatic question classification. Use when the user says 'ooo pm', 'prd', 'product requirements', or wants to create a PRD/PM document.
publish
Publish Seed specification as GitHub Issues for team-based project management.