Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to takumi0706/google-calendar-mcp. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/takumi0706/google-calendar-mcp/main/.claude/skills/kiro-review/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/takumi0706/google-calendar-mcpWrote 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/takumi0706/google-calendar-mcp/kiro-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/takumi0706/google-calendar-mcp/kiro-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/takumi0706/google-calendar-mcp/kiro-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/takumi0706/google-calendar-mcp/kiro-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/takumi0706/google-calendar-mcp/kiro-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 | $0.00039 | $0.01449 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00580 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00290 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00145 |
Grade A, and why
kiro-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 1mo 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.
This is a copy
94% identical to kiro-review — 8 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 172 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
kiro-review
Overview
This skill performs task-local adversarial review. It verifies that the implementation is real, complete, bounded, aligned with approved requirements and design, and supported by mechanical verification evidence.
Boundary terminology continuity:
- discovery identifies
Boundary Candidates - design fixes
Boundary Commitments - tasks constrain execution with
_Boundary:_ - review rejects concrete
Boundary Violations
When to Use
- After an implementer reports
READY_FOR_REVIEW - After remediation for a rejected review
- Before marking a task
[x] - Before accepting a task into feature-level validation
Do not use this skill to invent missing requirements or silently reinterpret the spec.
Inputs
Provide:
- Task ID and exact task text from
tasks.md - Relevant requirement section numbers
- Relevant design section numbers
- Spec file paths (
requirements.md,design.md, optionallytasks.md) - The implementer's status report
- The task
_Boundary:_scope constraints - Validation commands discovered by the controller
- Relevant steering excerpts when applicable
- Relevant
## Implementation Notesentries when applicable
Outputs
Return one of:
APPROVEDREJECTED
Also return:
- Mechanical results
- Findings with severity
- Required remediation
- One-sentence summary
Use the language specified in spec.json.
First Action
Run git diff to inspect the actual code changes. If the diff is large or ambiguous, read the changed files directly. Do not trust the implementer report as source of truth.
Core Principle
Read the spec yourself. Read the diff yourself. Verify mechanically where possible. Reject on concrete failures rather than interpretive optimism. The main review question is not just "does it work?" but "does it stay inside the approved responsibility boundary without hiding new coupling?"
Mechanical Checks
Run these checks and use the result as primary signal.
1. Regression Safety
- Run the project's canonical test suite using the validation commands discovered by the controller.
- If tests fail, reject.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 172 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A 784016139c4c
kiro-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository takumi0706/google-calendar-mcp (59 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 1,449 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 94% identical to kiro-review, differing in 8 lines, and is treated as a copy.
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"…
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…
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…
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…