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.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/s977043/river-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/commands/s977043/river-review/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/s977043/river-review/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/s977043/river-review/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/commands/s977043/river-review/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/s977043/river-review/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 | $0.00012 | $0.00212 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00085 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00042 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00021 |
Grade A, and why
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.
What it actually says
この変更をレビューしてください。レビューは日本語で、指摘は「重要度（Critical/Major/Minor/Info）」付きで書いてください。
参照（必要に応じて開く）:
観点:
- 仕様/要件の満たし方、壊れ方（境界条件、エラー時）
- セキュリティ・プライバシー・依存関係リスク
- 可読性、保守性、将来の拡張
- テスト（不足、過剰、観点漏れ）
- ドキュメントの更新漏れ
対象: ${input}
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 · 25 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A 36698e55a96b
review is a command published in the GitHub repository s977043/river-review (7 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 212 once invoked, about $0.0000 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-09-06.
Other commands, from other repositories
logic-fix-all
Autonomous audit-and-fix — after consent, scan the target, fix every logic issue found (all severities), verify each fix, and report anything unresolved.
logic-diff
Check two code versions for semantic equivalence — use after a refactor or rewrite.
logic-explain
Trace execution step by step — use when code behavior is surprising or confusing.
logic-health
Sweep a whole codebase or directory for logic correctness — use before a release or to identify risk hotspots.
logic-locate
Locate the root cause of a confirmed failure — use when you have a stack trace, failing test, or wrong output.
logic-review
Review code for logic bugs — use when you suspect something is wrong but have no failing test yet.