engineering-reviewer

engineering-reviewer is a skill for Claude Code from iamcxa/kc-claude-plugins. It costs 54 tokens per session (583 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A skill for giving an independent technical judgment on a defined engineering question. It is intended for contested or high-risk claims, not as a required step for every change.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to inspect the governing requirements, exact revision or artifact, primary evidence, and constraints, then advise the person who owns the decision.
Why use it?
It provides a separate assessment when evidence conflicts, a production action is hard to undo, or a technical decision has important uncertainty.

Skill for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: shipped in a Claude Code plugin.

Part of the kc-dev-flow-2 plugin — 10 skills, 3 agents shipped together

Good fit Use it to inspect the governing requirements, exact revision or artifact, primary evidence, and constraints, then advise the person who owns the decision.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/iamcxa/kc-claude-plugins/engineering-reviewer
Install

Getting it into your agent

One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.

Any agent
npx skills add iamcxa/kc-claude-plugins --skill engineering-reviewer
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/iamcxa/kc-claude-plugins

Made for: Claude Code.

Or install kc-dev-flow-2, the plugin that ships this one along with the rest of its 10 skills, 3 agents.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for engineering-reviewer

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/iamcxa/kc-claude-plugins/engineering-reviewer/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/iamcxa/kc-claude-plugins/engineering-reviewer)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/iamcxa/kc-claude-plugins/engineering-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/iamcxa/kc-claude-plugins/engineering-reviewer/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.

agentmods 80×15 button for engineering-reviewer

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/iamcxa/kc-claude-plugins/engineering-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/iamcxa/kc-claude-plugins/engineering-reviewer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 54 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 583 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00054 $0.00583
Opus 5.5 $0.00022 $0.00233
Sonnet 5.5 $0.00011 $0.00117
Haiku 4.5 $0.00005 $0.00058

Measured today against content hash 0453ca695252, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-10-07, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

engineering-reviewer 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 today.

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.

kc-dev-flow-2/skills/engineering-reviewer/SKILL.md · 69 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 69 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Engineering Reviewer

Invocation: kc-dev-flow-2:engineering-reviewer

Provide an independent technical judgment while leaving authority with its declared owner. This seat is parallel to the First Officer: FO orchestrates; Engineering Reviewer assesses a bounded technical question.

Trigger

Use this skill when at least one applies:

  • credible evidence conflicts on a material technical claim;
  • a production action is hard to reverse;
  • a recorded Captain amendment replaces an accepted criterion or the design;
  • a schema, integrity, security, privacy, or reliability decision has material residual uncertainty;
  • the Captain explicitly requests independent technical assurance.

Do not invoke it merely because a stage ended, a PR exists, or another property could be checked. Routine next-step advice belongs to kc-dev-flow-2:chief-engineer.

Assess

Use fresh context when authorship or task pressure could anchor the result. Read only the bounded question, governing contract, exact revision or artifact, primary evidence, material constraints, and disputed claims.

  1. State the technical claim and what decision it affects.
  2. Check the material evidence against primary behavior and governing limits.
  3. Separate an observed defect from an unsupported possibility.
  4. Name the risk, reversibility, durable obligation, and cheapest credible alternative.
  5. State what evidence would change the recommendation.

Do not manufacture dissent or require the author to disprove ungrounded possibilities. Raise an issue only when it can change the route, accepted risk, or authority decision.

Return

engineering_reviewer_report:
  question: <bounded technical claim or decision>
  revision: <exact revision or artifact>
  conclusion: <independent conclusion>
  material_evidence: [<primary evidence and limits>]
  risk_tradeoff: <risk, reversibility, durable obligation, alternative>
  recommendation: proceed | adjust | hold | escalate
  confidence: high | medium | low
  disproof_condition: <evidence that would change the recommendation>
  authority_boundary: <owners that retain the decision and gate>

Read the full file on GitHub · 69 lines

Changes

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.

  1. today Changed · +1 lines 0453ca695252
  2. 1mo ago First seen · 68 lines · 54 tokens per session scan A 511714a9ee5d

Subscribe to this mod's changes

engineering-reviewer is a skill published in the GitHub repository iamcxa/kc-claude-plugins (3 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 54 tokens to every session and 583 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 2026-09-16.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories

autoreview

Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.

openclaw/clawhub · 17 tokens

omh-code-review

This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).

rlaope/oh-my-hermes · 48 tokens

revdiff-plan

Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…

umputun/revdiff · 84 tokens

asplos-writing-style

Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills · 65 tokens

explore-unknowns

Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…

dzhng/skills · 162 tokens

re0-merge

Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…

LilMGenius/paperthin · 70 tokens