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.
npx skills add iamcxa/kc-claude-plugins --skill engineering-reviewergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/iamcxa/kc-claude-pluginsWrote 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/iamcxa/kc-claude-plugins/engineering-reviewer)<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.
<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>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 | $0.00054 | $0.00583 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.00233 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00117 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00058 |
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.
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.
- State the technical claim and what decision it affects.
- Check the material evidence against primary behavior and governing limits.
- Separate an observed defect from an unsupported possibility.
- Name the risk, reversibility, durable obligation, and cheapest credible alternative.
- 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>
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.
- today Changed · +1 lines 0453ca695252
- 1mo ago First seen · 68 lines · 54 tokens per session scan A 511714a9ee5d
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.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
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"…
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…
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…
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…