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-verify-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-verify-code)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/apokamo/kaji/issue-verify-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/apokamo/kaji/issue-verify-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-verify-code"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/apokamo/kaji/issue-verify-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 | $0.00035 | $0.02390 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00956 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00478 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00239 |
Grade A, and why
issue-verify-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 — 225 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Issue Verify Code
重要: このスキルは実装/修正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。 同一セッションで実行すると、実装時のバイアスが確認判断に影響する可能性があります。
コード修正後の確認を行います。
重要: このコマンドは「指摘事項が適切に修正されたか」のみを確認します。 新規の指摘は行いません。これはレビューサイクルの収束を保証するためです。
いつ使うか
| タイミング | このスキルを使用 |
|---|---|
/issue-fix-code 後の修正確認 |
✅ 必須 |
| 新規レビューが必要な場合 | ❌ /issue-review-code を使用 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
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）
verify と review の違い
| 項目 | review | verify |
|---|---|---|
| 目的 | フルレビュー | 修正確認のみ |
| 新規指摘 | する | しない |
| 確認範囲 | コード全体 | 前回指摘箇所のみ |
| 使用タイミング | 実装完了後 | fix 後 |
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。
-
前回の指摘内容を取得:
kaji issue view [issue_id] --comments「コードレビュー結果」と「レビュー指摘への対応報告」を確認。
-
Baseline artifact の確認: docs/dev/baseline-check.md に従い固定 path の artifact を確認する。 regression 判定は
python -m kaji_harness.scripts.baseline_precheck --worktree [worktree_dir] --compareを使い、verdict: ok、regression 0 件を必須とする。Issue コメントは正本として検索しない。
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 Changed 520f6c7dcd43
- 29d ago Changed 4ddcdbb34b44
- 1mo ago First seen · 225 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 1c8237c59fa7
issue-verify-code is a skill published in the GitHub repository apokamo/kaji (15 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 2,390 once invoked, about $0.0001 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.