Kiro Crew is a persistent development workspace where agents continue multi-step software work across sessions, schedules, and connected interfaces. Developers use it locally or remotely through a desktop app, web dashboard, CLI, Slack, or Discord, with unattended tasks and recurring jobs. The catalogue contains skills and instructions for working with this workspace.
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 kirodotdev/KiroCrew --skill goal-ledger-conductorgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/kirodotdev/KiroCrewWrote 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/kirodotdev/kirocrew/goal-ledger-conductor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/kirodotdev/kirocrew/goal-ledger-conductor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kirodotdev/kirocrew/goal-ledger-conductor/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/kirodotdev/kirocrew/goal-ledger-conductor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kirodotdev/kirocrew/goal-ledger-conductor.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 | $0.00125 | $0.06628 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00063 | $0.03314 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00025 | $0.01326 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00663 |
Grade A, and why
goal-ledger-conductor 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 — 474 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Goal Ledger Conductor
You own a goal. You do not do the goal's work.
Your four jobs, none of which can be delegated to a work item:
- Decompose the goal into work items.
- Stand up a session per item and bind it to a ledger item.
- Verify what came back.
- Decide the next round, or stop.
What makes this skill different from goal-conductor: your workers report to
you as data. Each item is a record in the work ledger; a worker writes a
schema-bounded status against the ONE item it was bound to, and you read that
record with one call. You do not reconstruct an item's state by reading its
child's transcript, and you do not squeeze item state into your own
session_ledger artifacts — the ledger is the item store.
Everything else belongs in a work item. This spec has no file-writing tool at
all — not fs_write, and not code either, which governance classes as a
filesystem write because it writes files and can shell out. grep, glob and
web_search are unmounted as well; fs_read and web_fetch are what you read
the world with. That is deliberate. If a task needs a file written, it is a work
item, not something you do. execute_bash IS granted, for exactly one purpose:
running this skill's one bundled script, the acceptance evaluator
(scripts/accept_eval.py). It is deliberately kept out of allowedTools, so
every call prompts for approval — see "Known limits" for what that costs per
patrol cycle.
What is a work item
A candidate qualifies only if all three hold:
- Independent — it does not consume another candidate's output. Two candidates that hand off to each other are one sequence inside a single item.
- Assertable — you can name its completion condition now, before
dispatching, as one of the evaluator's kinds:
pr_checks(a PR's checks all green viagh),file(a path existing), orhuman_approval(the user accepts it — legitimate for design reviews and go/no-go gates, but never machine-evaluated). There is deliberately no "run this command" kind, so "the test suite passes" is expressed aspr_checkson the PR that carries the work — CI runs the suite, and its verdict is the one that counts. If an item's completion genuinely cannot be stated as one of these, it is not assertable: say so and treat it as a needs-human item rather than inventing a condition. - Long-running — long enough that the user would plausibly want to open it and steer it while it runs.
What ships with it
1 file 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.
- today First seen · 474 lines · 125 tokens per session scan A b659a803d010
goal-ledger-conductor is a skill published in the GitHub repository kirodotdev/KiroCrew (3,703 stars, last pushed today), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 125 tokens to every session and 6,628 once invoked, about $0.0006 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 2026-09-08.
Other skills, from other repositories
vigilante-create-issue
Help a human author write an implementation-ready GitHub issue that Vigilante can execute reliably.
vigilante-issue-implementation
Implement a GitHub issue end-to-end when Vigilante dispatches work for a watched repository. Use the provided worktree, respect repository instructions, comment on the issue as work progresses, and report failures back to GitHub.
vigilante-issue-implementation-on-bazel-monorepo
Implement a GitHub issue end-to-end when Vigilante dispatches work for a Bazel-based monorepo. Use the provided worktree, respect repository instructions, comment on the issue as work progresses, and report failures back to GitHub.
vigilante-issue-implementation-on-rush-monorepo
Implement a GitHub issue end-to-end when Vigilante dispatches work for a watched Rush monorepo. Use the provided worktree, respect repository instructions, comment on the issue as work progresses, and report failures back to GitHub.
vigilante-issue-implementation-on-turborepo
Implement a GitHub issue end-to-end when Vigilante dispatches work for a pnpm/workspace-based Turborepo. Use the provided worktree, respect repository instructions, comment on the issue as work progresses, and report failures back to GitHub.
vigilante-issue-implementation-on-python
Implement a GitHub issue end-to-end when Vigilante dispatches work for a Python repository with idiomatic tooling and security guidance.