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 review-teamgit 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/review-team)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/s977043/river-review/review-team"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/s977043/river-review/review-team/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/review-team"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/s977043/river-review/review-team.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 | $0.00147 | $0.02833 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00059 | $0.01133 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00029 | $0.00567 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00283 |
Grade A, and why
review-team 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 — 182 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Team（レビュー・チーム）
複数の専門レビュアーロールを並列実行し、複数ロールが同一箇所を指摘した「コンセンサス指摘」を自動的に浮かび上がらせるレビュー手法。
When to Use / いつ使うか
- 重要リリース前の網羅的なレビューが必要なとき
- セキュリティ・バグ・テスト・依存関係を一度に確認したいとき
- 「どこから見ても問題ない」という確証が欲しいとき
- 単一視点のレビューでは不十分と感じるとき
Reviewer Roles / レビュアーロール
| ロール | 担当領域 | 自動選択条件（auto モード） |
|---|---|---|
bug-hunter |
ロジックエラー・境界値・null/undefined 参照・並行アクセス競合・エラー握り潰し | 常時 |
security-scanner |
インジェクション・認証・機密漏洩 | リスクファイルまたはインフラ変更 |
test-gap |
テストカバレッジ・エッジケース | テストファイルまたはアプリファイル3件以上 |
dependency-reviewer |
サプライチェーン・バージョンジャンプ | package.json / lockfile 変更 |
frontend-reviewer |
アクセシビリティ・レンダリング・レスポンシブ・loading/error 状態の欠落 | .tsx/.jsx/.css/.scss/.sass/.less/.vue/.svelte 変更 |
ci-cd-reviewer |
ワークフロー・アクションのピン・権限 | .github/workflows/ 変更 |
Stage / risk signal による選択（#1545 P1・任意）
auto モードは、上記のファイル種別ヒューリスティックに加えて、ホスト（PlanGate 等）が渡す 形式化された signal でもロールを選択できる。signal は任意で、渡さない場合の挙動は従来と不変（後方互換）。signal は既存ロールのみへ写像し、新ロールは作らない。写像先を持たない Lens（devex 等）は Reviewer Lens Taxonomy（Issue #1545）の Gap として記録され、レビュアーは追加しない。
| signal 種別 | 追加ロール |
|---|---|
stage: plan |
security-scanner, test-gap |
stage: design |
frontend-reviewer |
stage: exec / stage: release |
security-scanner |
stage: verify |
test-gap |
touchesAuth / changesPermissions / handlesSensitiveData |
security-scanner |
databaseMigration / breakingChange |
security-scanner |
changesUi / changesUserFlow |
frontend-reviewer |
deploymentChange |
ci-cd-reviewer |
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 Changed · +12 lines 8e9279861a80
- 1mo ago First seen · 170 lines · 147 tokens per session scan A 271dcec5f38b
review-team is a skill published in the GitHub repository s977043/river-review (7 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 147 tokens to every session and 2,833 once invoked, about $0.0006 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
review-all
Multi-agent code review for diffs (project-agnostic). Covers standards, bugs, security, DRY, smells, perf, tests, API contracts, a11y/i18n. Verifies each finding to eliminate false positives. Use for /review-all, pre-PR/pre-commit review, or auditing uncommitted/staged changes.
eval-code-quality
Specialized code quality evaluator for the Evaluate-Loop. Use this for evaluating code implementation tracks where the deliverable is functional code — features, API routes, state management, utilities. Checks build integrity, type safety, code patterns, error handling, dead code, imports, test coverage, and naming…
receiving-code-review
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation.
requesting-code-review
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements.
swarm-pi-review
Review a Git working tree or branch with read-only Pi workers. Use standard for bugs, security, regressions, and missing tests; use lean for diff-bound simplification, deletion, reuse, YAGNI, or native replacements. Route one question to ask and broader risk analysis to orchestrate.
security-review
Security code review for vulnerabilities. Use when asked to "security review", "find vulnerabilities", "check for security issues", "audit security", "OWASP review", or review code for injection, XSS, authentication, authorization, cryptography issues. Provides systematic review with confidence-based reporting.