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 plangate-plan-integritygit 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/plangate-plan-integrity)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/s977043/river-review/plangate-plan-integrity"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/s977043/river-review/plangate-plan-integrity/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/plangate-plan-integrity"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/s977043/river-review/plangate-plan-integrity.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 | $0.00044 | $0.02548 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00022 | $0.01274 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00510 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00255 |
Grade A, and why
PlanGate 計画整合性チェック 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 7d 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 — 146 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Pattern declaration
Primary pattern: Reviewer Secondary patterns: Inversion Why: PlanGate の計画成果物(pbi-input / plan / todo / test-cases)を横断的に突き合わせて整合性の欠落を指摘し、不足時は実行を止めるゲートとして機能する。
Goal / 目的
- PlanGate が生成する計画アーティファクト間の整合性の欠落(PBI と計画の不一致、受け入れ条件とテストケースの抜け、TODO と計画のズレ)を実装着手前に検出する。
- 下流(midstream/downstream)の skill が健全な計画を前提に動けるよう、計画側の穴を早期に可視化する。
Non-goals / 扱わないこと
- 実装コードそのものの品質レビュー(midstream skill の責務)。
- テストコードの実装妥当性(downstream skill の責務)。
- PBI の事業価値や優先度の妥当性判断(人間の責務)。
- PlanGate 固有のディレクトリ構成や内部コマンドへの依存判定(
pages/reference/artifact-input-contract.mdに従い artifact-driven で判断)。
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。
- 入力 artifact に
planが存在する(pages/reference/artifact-input-contract.mdの ID に準拠) - 入力 artifact に
pbi-input/todo/test-casesのいずれか1つ以上が存在する - 差分または fullFile のいずれかの inputContext が利用可能である
ゲート不成立時の出力: NO_REVIEW: plangate-plan-integrity — 計画アーティファクト(plan + 関連1つ以上)が揃っていない
Gateと抑制条件の違い:
- Gate = 計画成果物が揃わなければ整合性判定は不可能なので実行しない。
- 抑制条件 = 実行した上で個別の指摘を抑える。
False-positive guards / 抑制条件
planが "TBD" / "未決" として未決事項を明示的に宣言している項目は、欠落ではなく「未決の明示」として扱い指摘しない。todo/test-casesに「次フェーズで追記」と期限付きで明記されたスコープ外項目は指摘しない。- PlanGate 外のワークフローで任意 artifact を省略している場合、欠損そのものを blocker とせず
artifact-input-contract.mdの「欠損時」挙動に従う。
Rule / ルール
計画アーティファクトを以下の観点で突き合わせる。1観点=1指摘が目安。
1. PBI ↔ plan の整合
pbi-inputの目的・対象ユーザー・受け入れ条件がplanに反映されているか。planの作業範囲がpbi-inputのスコープを逸脱または不足していないか。pbi-inputに書かれた制約(非機能要件、依存、期限)がplanで考慮されているか。
2. plan ↔ todo の整合
planの設計判断・タスクがtodoにタスク分解されているか。todoにplanに無いタスクが紛れ込んでいないか(スコープクリープ)。- 依存順序・マイルストーンが矛盾していないか。
3. 受け入れ条件 ↔ test-cases の覆域
pbi-input/planの受け入れ条件(Given-When-Then 等)がtest-casesにカバーされているか。- 正常系だけでなく代表的な異常系(権限なし / 入力不備 / データなし / タイムアウト / 競合)が
test-casesに含まれているか。 test-casesに受け入れ条件と紐づかない過剰なケースが含まれていないか。
4. 未決事項の明示
plan/todo/test-casesのいずれかに未決事項がある場合、決定者・期限・判断材料が書かれているか。
What ships with it
13 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.
- eval/promptfoo.yaml 2.6 KB
- fixtures/01-true-positive-missing-acceptance.md 2.0 KB
- fixtures/02-false-positive-explicit-next-phase.md 2.4 KB
- fixtures/03-fallback-plan-missing.md 1.1 KB
- fixtures/04-true-positive-normalization-order-conflict.md 5.1 KB
- fixtures/05-false-positive-normalization-order-fixed.md 6.4 KB
- golden/01-true-positive-missing-acceptance.md 892 B
- golden/02-false-positive-explicit-next-phase.md 946 B
- golden/03-fallback-plan-missing.md 542 B
- golden/04-true-positive-normalization-order-conflict.md 1.8 KB
- golden/05-false-positive-normalization-order-fixed.md 1.7 KB
- prompt/system.md 1.7 KB
- prompt/user.md 847 B
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.
- 7d ago First seen · 146 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A 145d216dc8f4
PlanGate 計画整合性チェック is a skill published in the GitHub repository s977043/river-review (3 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 2,548 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
brooks-sweep
Full-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly to the codebase. Safe changes are auto-applied; risky changes are confirmed before execution. Drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user…
brooks-test
Test quality review drawing on twelve classic engineering books — with primary focus on xUnit Test Patterns, The Art of Unit Testing, How Google Tests Software, and Working Effectively with Legacy Code — that diagnoses structural problems in an existing test suite: brittleness, mock abuse, coverage illusions, slow…
pre-pr-audit
Pre-PR confidence audit with 5-dimension scoring. Use when: final check before commit/push/PR, evaluating PR readiness, assessing test quality + risk + coverage holistically. Triggers: pre-pr, readiness check, confidence audit, final verification, ready to PR, how confident. Not for: code review (use…
spike-consumer-adversarial
OI-3 spike harness — heavy consumer, ADVERSARIAL arm. Worst-case early-exit test: the mid-workflow Skill call has no continuation guardrail and the guidance skill ends with a final-sounding anchor. Use only when explicitly invoked by the spike harness with a TRIALID and data path.
code-standards
Apply a disciplined engineering workflow to any code change. Use whenever implementing a feature, fixing a bug, or refactoring — before writing code, not after. Walks orient → baseline → smallest change → test → verify → self-review, and enforces language-agnostic hard gates (don't mass-reformat, keep the linter and…
loop-test
A local experiment for designing repeating checks with Claude Code’s loop command. It covers both fixed intervals and checks that schedule themselves again after each run.