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 | $0.02455 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00073 | $0.01228 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00029 | $0.00491 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00246 |
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 11d 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 — 170 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.
- 11d 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 (3 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 147 tokens to every session and 2,455 once invoked, about $0.0007 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
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.
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.
postgresql-code-review
PostgreSQL-specific code review assistant focusing on PostgreSQL best practices, anti-patterns, and unique quality standards. Covers JSONB operations, array usage, custom types, schema design, function optimization, and PostgreSQL-exclusive security features like Row Level Security (RLS).
code-review
Review code changes for security, performance, and correctness. Trigger with a PR URL or diff, "review this before I merge", "is this code safe?", or when checking a change for N+1 queries, injection risks, missing edge cases, or error handling gaps.
ask-reviewer
Dispatches the code-reviewer agent to review code for quality, bugs, and adherence to project conventions.