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 ihatesea69/kiro-kit --skill code-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ihatesea69/kiro-kitWrote 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/ihatesea69/kiro-kit/code-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ihatesea69/kiro-kit/code-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ihatesea69/kiro-kit/code-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00029 | $0.00276 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00138 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00055 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00028 |
Grade A, and why
code-review 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 3d 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.
What it actually says
Code Review
Activate this skill when performing or receiving code reviews.
When to Use
- Receiving code review feedback
- Completing tasks requiring review before proceeding
- Before making completion claims about implementations
- Requesting reviews via subagent workflows
Receiving Feedback
- Apply technical rigor over performative agreement
- If feedback is unclear, ask for clarification with specific questions
- If feedback is technically questionable, explain your reasoning
- Never change code just to appease a reviewer without understanding why
Requesting Reviews
- Provide context: what changed, why, and what to focus on
- Highlight areas of uncertainty or risk
- Include test results and verification evidence
- Note any trade-offs or decisions made
Verification Gates
Before claiming work is complete:
- Run the test suite and confirm passing
- Verify the build succeeds
- Check for type errors and lint warnings
- Confirm the change addresses the original requirement
- Provide evidence of verification (command output, test results)
Rules
- Never claim completion without evidence
- Honest feedback is more valuable than agreement
- Focus on correctness, security, and maintainability
- Style preferences are lower priority than functional issues
What ships with it
3 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 46 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A dc470892f286
code-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository ihatesea69/kiro-kit (18 stars, last pushed 18d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 276 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
cn-check
Install and run the Continue CLI (cn) to execute AI agent checks on local code changes. Use when asked to "run checks", "lint with AI", "review my changes with cn", or set up Continue CI locally.
genie-orca-review
Independent, read-only review of a group, a wish, or a PR on Orca — SHIP / FIX-FIRST / BLOCKED with severity-tagged findings. Council and retro are this skill with a different input.
argot-check
Score your working changes with argot — flag code foreign to this repo's own patterns (unfamiliar dependencies, APIs, constructs), functions the repo already has, code filed in the wrong place, imports that break the repo's layering, and tests weakened, disabled, or deleted alongside a production change — before…
atomic-review
Compressed code review comments. Cuts noise from PR feedback while preserving the actionable signal. Each comment is one line: location, problem, fix. Use when user says "review this PR", "code review", "review the diff", or invokes /atomic-review. Auto-triggers when reviewing pull requests.
ralphctl-code-review-and-quality
Multi-phase code-quality skill — primary frame for the evaluator role in Execute, the architecture axis in Plan, and correctness/readability in Refine. Multi-axis code review with severity vocabulary. Use when you are the evaluator assessing a generator's output, and when reviewing any change before signalling…
handoff
Transfer the current coding, debugging, planning, or architecture session to AI Badger. Use for broad session continuation; use badger-review for an independent review.