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 s977043/river-review --skill architecture-risk-registergit 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/skills/s977043/river-review/architecture-risk-register)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/s977043/river-review/architecture-risk-register"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/s977043/river-review/architecture-risk-register/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/s977043/river-review/architecture-risk-register"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/s977043/river-review/architecture-risk-register.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 | $0.00031 | $0.01257 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00629 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00251 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00126 |
Grade A, and why
Architecture Risks, Assumptions & Open Questions 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.
What it actually says
Pattern declaration
Primary pattern: Reviewer Secondary patterns: Inversion Why: 設計ドキュメントの暗黙の前提・未決事項・リスクの放置を検出し、明示的な管理を促す。
Goal / 目的
- 設計ドキュメントの差分から、暗黙の前提・未決事項・リスクが “放置される” 状態を減らし、意思決定と実装を前に進める。
Non-goals / 扱わないこと
- すべての不確実性を欠陥扱いしない（未決なら “未決として管理する” を促す）。
- プロジェクト管理の一般論（タスク管理ツール運用など）に踏み込まない。
Pre-execution Gate / 実行前ゲート
このスキルは以下の条件がすべて満たされない限りNO_REVIEWを返す。
- 差分に設計/アーキテクチャドキュメント（
docs/*design*.md,docs/*architecture*.md,docs/adr/,*.adr）が含まれている - 差分に前提・リスク・未決事項・意思決定に関する記述の追加・変更が含まれている
- inputContextに
diffが含まれている
ゲート不成立時の出力: NO_REVIEW: architecture-risk-register — 前提/リスク/未決に関する設計ドキュメントの変更なし
False-positive guards / 抑制条件
- 既にリスク/前提/未決が別ドキュメントで管理され、参照が明確な場合は重複指摘しない。
Rule / ルール
- 先頭に要約を 1 行出す（新規/変更された前提・リスク・未決の要点）。
- 指摘は最大 8 件まで。重大な放置リスク（互換性、移行、セキュリティ、運用）を優先。
- “追記テンプレ” を付けて、ドキュメントに落とせる形にする。
Checklist / 観点チェックリスト
- Assumptions（前提）
- 前提（外部依存、データ品質、組織体制、SLO/コスト上限など）が明示されているか。
- 前提が崩れたときの影響（何が壊れるか）が書かれているか。
- Risks（リスク）
- 技術リスク/運用リスク/互換性リスクが列挙されているか。
- 緩和策（mitigation）または検証計画（spike/PoC）があるか。
- Open Questions（未決事項）
- 未決事項に Owner と期限（または意思決定タイミング）があるか。
- 判断材料（必要な情報・確認先）が書かれているか。
- Follow-up（追跡）
- ADR/設計の TODO が、消し込み条件（完了定義）付きで管理されているか。
Output / 出力フォーマット
すべて日本語。<file>:<line>: <message> 形式で出力する。
- 先頭に要約を 1 行:
(summary):1: <前提/リスク/未決の要点> - 以降は指摘（最大 8 件）:
<message>に[severity=critical|major|minor|info]を含める。- 可能なら “追記テンプレ” を 1 行付ける。
追記テンプレ例:
前提: <内容> / 崩れた場合: <影響> / 監視: <兆候>リスク: <内容> / 影響: <大> / 緩和: <案> / Owner: <役割> / 期限: <日付 or マイルストーン>未決: <問い> / 判断材料: <必要情報> / Owner: <役割> / 期限: <日付 or マイルストーン>
評価指標（Evaluation）
- 合格基準: 差分に紐づく暗黙の前提や未決が、追記テンプレ付きで可視化されている。
- 不合格基準: 差分と無関係な一般論、根拠のない断定、指摘過多。
人間に返す条件（Human Handoff）
- リスク受容（accept）や優先順位付けが必要な場合は人間（TL/PM）へ返す。
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 · 96 lines · 31 tokens per session scan A 9209a20c059d
Architecture Risks, Assumptions & Open Questions is a skill published in the GitHub repository s977043/river-review (3 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 1,257 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
punchcard
Architecture-level design review of a code change: module boundaries, dependency direction, data model, error paths, cost of the next change — never naming, formatting, or anything a linter catches. Use when the user invokes /punchcard, says 'punchcard review', or asks for any design, architecture, or structural…
decision-challenge
Use when a high-impact plan, migration or architecture claim needs a bounded adversarial challenge before commitment. Isolates claims from persuasion, attacks assumptions, reconciles doubts with evidence and emits proceed/hold/stop. NOT a finished-diff review (review/code-review), NOT SDD artifact consistency…
logic-health
Sweep a directory, module, or full codebase for logic correctness and produce a scored health dashboard with systemic patterns. Trigger when the user requests a health view — "audit the whole codebase", "health check", "health overview", "logic health overview", "audit src/", "audit auth and payments modules", "where…
deep-plan
Creates detailed, sectionized, TDD-oriented implementation plans through research, stakeholder interviews, and multi-LLM review. Use when planning features that need thorough pre-implementation analysis.
omnicheck-gitlab
Use when checking if MR review findings have been applied — verifies both OmniForge-generated and human reviewer comments against the current diff, posts nudge replies on unaddressed threads.
omnicheck-github
Use when checking if PR review findings have been applied — verifies both OmniForge-generated and human reviewer comments against the current diff, posts nudge replies on unaddressed threads.