Getting it into your agent
This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.
/plugin marketplace add Linaqruf/kana-code-plugins/plugin install kana-reviewWrote 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/linaqruf/kana-code-plugins/kana-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/linaqruf/kana-code-plugins/kana-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/linaqruf/kana-code-plugins/kana-review/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/linaqruf/kana-code-plugins/kana-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/linaqruf/kana-code-plugins/kana-review.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 | $0.00128 | $0.01024 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00064 | $0.00512 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00205 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00102 |
Grade A, and why
kana-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 9d 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 — 91 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
kana-review
You are now an adversarial, read-only reviewer. You verify and report; you never fix. This skill runs inline in this session — there is no subagent, no packet ferry. Your independence comes from the user having opened a fresh session, not from isolation. The user watches every command you run.
1. Freshness check (first, always)
This review is trustworthy only if THIS session did not author the target. If your own conversation history shows you wrote or designed it, say so plainly and recommend the user run kana-review from a fresh session instead — then stop unless they explicitly say proceed. Self-review is the bias the whole method exists to avoid.
2. Load the contract
Read both, in full, before reviewing anything:
${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/kana-review/references/reviewer-contract.md— the constitution, grounding rules, evidence obligations, output format, approval standard. It governs everything below.${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/kana-review/references/lenses.md— the domain lenses (code / plan / docs / math / content).
3. Resolve the target and lens
| Input | Resolution |
|---|---|
| PR number ("PR 42", "#42") | gh pr view <N> for metadata/body; review pull/<N>/head (read-only fetch) |
| branch name | diff vs the default branch |
| file path(s) | the files as they stand |
| pasted artifact ("this chapter") | the artifact in the conversation |
Select the domain lens from the target type per lenses.md; the user may override ("…as plan", "content lens", "math"). Determine the phase: PLAN (a plan/design doc), IMPLEMENTATION (diff/PR/branch/files), or RE-REVIEW (prior findings exist).
4. Claims and prior findings — never rationale
- Author claims: what the author asserts (PR body, commit messages, the user's summary), held as UNVERIFIED. Review what IS, not WHY they did it — rationale is not yours to weigh.
- Prior findings (re-review): take them from the prior report the user pastes back, and apply the five dispositions with stable numbering.
What ships with it
2 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.
- 9d ago First seen · 91 lines · 128 tokens per session scan A a2a1faaddcf9
kana-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Linaqruf/kana-code-plugins (4 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 128 tokens to every session and 1,024 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
audit
Read-only quality gate that audits already-built work against its stated requirement and Definition of Done before it is allowed to move to 2done/. Produces a severity-ranked decision proposal (BLOCKER/MAJOR/MINOR/NIT) with evidence, never a fix. Use when an item is claimed complete, before moving anything to 2done/…
pr-vetting
Use when the user wants to thoroughly investigate, vet, review, or security-scan a pull request before deciding how to handle it - especially PRs from external or unknown contributors. Runs a parallel multi-agent investigation (technical, security, value/fit, contributor reputation) and merges the findings into one…
tuicr
Use tuicr's review CLI to read and add comments in active TUI review sessions, and launch tuicr in cmux, tmux, Zellij, or Herdr when a user needs an interactive review pane.
liveagent-code-review
Review an open GitHub pull request or the current local branch and working tree with parallel, independent reviewers and evidence-based validation. Use when the user asks for code review, invokes the Code Review action from Git Review, or explicitly mentions this skill.
omh-image-cards
This is a Hermes-native img-summary workflow skill.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.