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 agentmods add skills/s977043/river-review/code-quality-samplenpx skills add s977043/river-review --skill code-quality-samplegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/s977043/river-reviewWhat 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 | $0.00014 | $0.00501 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00251 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00100 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00050 |
Grade A, and why
Sample Code Quality Pass 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 2d 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
Goal / 目的
- 差分に対して、可読性・保守性・エラー処理のリスクを “薄く” 拾うサンプルです。
Non-goals / 扱わないこと
- 重要度の低いスタイル指摘を大量に出さない。
- 差分外のリファクタ方針を断定して押し付けない。
False-positive guards / 抑制条件
- 変更がコメント/整形のみで、実質的な挙動変更がない場合は深入りしない。
Rule / ルール
- 命名、責務、重複、不要コード、例外処理の不足など、保守性を落とす要因を優先する。
- 指摘は差分に紐づけ、必要なら “次の一手” を 1 つだけ添える。
Output / 出力
<file>:<line>: <message>形式で 1 行ずつ（日本語、短く）。
評価指標（Evaluation）
- 合格基準: 指摘が差分に紐づき、根拠と次アクションが説明されている。
- 不合格基準: 差分と無関係な指摘、根拠のない断定、抑制条件の無視。
人間に返す条件（Human Handoff）
- 仕様や意図が不明確で解釈が分かれる場合は質問として返す。
- 影響範囲が広い設計判断やトレードオフは人間レビューへ返す。
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 59 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A 279ec8d7dfc8
Sample Code Quality Pass is a skill published in the GitHub repository s977043/river-review (2 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 501 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
deep-review
Multi-angle code review that adapts to what is being reviewed — a mid-flight worktree increment, a full PR before production, a merge-window integration sweep, or a security-only pass. Findings are scored, adversarially refuted, widened to the same defect elsewhere in the codebase, and reported to the native review…
codex-adversarial-review-lite
Codex Adversarial Review - Lite: user-invoked audit workflow for Claude Code users who want Codex CLI to independently review AI-generated code, plans, test expectations, and scope before fixes are applied. Cross-platform (Windows, macOS, Linux, WSL). Use only when the user explicitly invokes audit or selftest.
simplified-english
Write user-facing comments, plans, and documents in ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical English — short, unambiguous sentences with approved words and one meaning each — so readers understand them the first time.
seedance-style
This skill should be used when the user asks for visual style, art direction, render feel, period aesthetic, texture, animation style, realism level, or style-safe alternatives to studio or franchise references.
fixer
Surgical code fixer for Bug Hunter. Implements minimal, precise fixes for verified bugs. Uses doc-lookup (Context Hub + Context7) to verify correct API usage in patches. Respects fix strategy classifications (safe-autofix vs manual-review vs larger-refactor).
referee
Final arbiter for Bug Hunter. Receives Hunter findings and Skeptic challenges, independently re-reads code, and delivers authoritative verdicts with CVSS scoring and proof-of-concept generation for security findings.