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 KaimingWan/oh-my-kiro --skill omk-reviewinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/KaimingWan/oh-my-kiroWrote 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/kaimingwan/oh-my-kiro/omk-reviewing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/kaimingwan/oh-my-kiro/omk-reviewing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kaimingwan/oh-my-kiro/omk-reviewing/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/kaimingwan/oh-my-kiro/omk-reviewing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kaimingwan/oh-my-kiro/omk-reviewing.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 | $0.00067 | $0.01740 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00034 | $0.00870 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00348 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00174 |
Grade A, and why
omk-reviewing 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 12d 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 — 157 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Trigger Examples
- "@review 看看这个 PR"
- "帮我 review 一下这段代码"
- "check my implementation before I merge"
- "review the plan I just wrote"
- "这个改动有没有问题？"
Reviewing — Request, Execute, Receive
Requesting Review
When (mandatory): after completing major feature, before merge, after each task batch.
Plan Review — 4 angles, 4 parallel subagents
Pre-review Risk Identification
Before dispatching reviewers, the main agent MUST run the Pre-mortem Analysis defined in skills/planning/SKILL.md (Phase 1.5 → Pre-mortem Analysis section). This produces 3 risk questions (Integration / Assumption / Environment) that are injected as "Specific Questions" into each reviewer's dispatch query.
Additionally, craft one canary question per dispatch that requires reading a specific source file.
Dispatch
Dispatch exactly 4 reviewer subagents in parallel (agent_name: "reviewer", dangerously_trust_all_tools: true), one per angle:
| # | Angle | Mission |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Goal Alignment | Every task maps to goal? Execution order valid? Non-goals respected? |
| 2 | Verify Correctness | Each verify command sound? False positives/negatives? |
| 3 | Completeness | All modified files covered? Edge cases? Conflicts with other plans? |
| 4 | Technical Feasibility | Blockers? Contradictions? Race conditions? Signal safety? |
Each subagent query must include: plan file path + relevant source file paths to read.
Deterministic Pre-check (main agent, before dispatching reviewers)
Before dispatching any reviewer subagent, the main agent runs deterministic checks (reviewer subagent only has read/write/shell — no LSP tools):
- Run
get_diagnosticson all modified files — collect compiler errors/warnings - Run
pattern_searchfor known anti-patterns (bare except, subprocess without timeout, etc.) - Package results as "Pre-check Findings" to include in each reviewer's dispatch query
Pre-check findings are automatically P0/P1 — they don't need LLM judgment. This reduces the reviewer's workload to reasoning-heavy issues only.
What ships with it
5 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.
- 12d ago First seen · 157 lines · 67 tokens per session scan A 71d5989f6682
omk-reviewing is a skill published in the GitHub repository KaimingWan/oh-my-kiro (103 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 67 tokens to every session and 1,740 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
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"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…