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 river-review-disciplinegit 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/river-review-discipline)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/s977043/river-review/river-review-discipline"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/s977043/river-review/river-review-discipline/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/river-review-discipline"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/s977043/river-review/river-review-discipline.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 | $0.00154 | $0.03540 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00077 | $0.01770 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00031 | $0.00708 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00015 | $0.00354 |
Grade A, and why
river-review-discipline 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 12d 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.
RiverReview Discipline
AI が「実装したつもり」「確認したつもり」「問題ないはず」で完了報告することを防ぐレビュー規律。 Fable 5 の検証習慣・レビュー観点・リスク発見・差分読解・次アクション決定を、日常モデルでも 継承できる運用ルールとして外部化したもの。
このスキルは RiverReview の既存資産の上位の運用規律であり、既存を置き換えない。 判断語彙・観点・記録は既存へ橋渡しする（下表・各節の「参照」を見よ）。
When to use
- PR / 差分 / 仕様 / 設計 / 実装計画 / テスト / 検証レポート / 完了報告をレビューするとき
- セキュリティ影響・データ影響・破壊的変更を含む変更を判断するとき
- サブエージェントにレビューを分担させるか判断するとき
/compactや要約でレビュー判断が失われそうなとき（memory 作成）
When not to use
- 実装そのものを書くとき（本スキルはレビュー規律であって実装手順ではない）
- 語句・体裁のみの typo 修正（分類
documentation・low リスクで軽く通す） - レビュー対象が単一・小さく、既に十分な検証証跡があるとき（過剰適用しない）
既存 RiverReview 資産へのマッピング（重複させない）
| 本スキルの概念 | 既存 RiverReview 資産 |
|---|---|
| レビュー観点 | docs/review/viewpoints.md / pages/reference/review-policy.md（SSoT） |
| 重要度 | docs/review/output-format.md の critical / major / minor / info |
| 差分外の盲点発見 | skills/agent-skills/adversarial-review, skills/upstream/pre-mortem |
| 要件の未決明示 | skills/upstream/requirements-acceptance |
| 逸脱記録 | PR テンプレの Deviations 節 + plangate-exec-conformance の design-deviation |
| memory | docs/CONTINUITY.md（plan 継続台帳） |
| 機械判定（gate） | src/lib/gate-decision.mjs の deriveGateDecision（下表で対応づけ） |
レビュー工程の判断 ↔ gateDecision ↔ リスク階層
本スキルの approved / needs_revision / blocked / rejected は人間/エージェントのレビュー工程の判断。
RiverReview の機械 gate（host 側導出）とは責務が異なるが、次のように対応づく。
| レビュー判断 | gateDecision | リスク階層 | 意味 |
|---|---|---|---|
| approved | GO / GO_WITH_OBSERVATION | 原っぱ / 丘 | 続行可。観測付き続行を含む |
| needs_revision | NO_GO（BLOCKING_FINDINGS） | — | 直せば通る。修正して再レビュー |
| blocked | ESCALATE | 崖 | 人間承認・追加情報・検証不能。止める |
| rejected | NO_GO（方針却下） | — | 要件不適合・設計矛盾・より安全な代替案あり |
What ships with it
9 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.
- anti-patterns.md 6.1 KB
- review-memory.md 1.5 KB
- river-review-loop.md 4.7 KB
- templates/design-review-template.md 1.7 KB
- templates/diff-review-template.md 1.9 KB
- templates/report-review-template.md 1.1 KB
- templates/requirements-review-template.md 1.2 KB
- templates/verification-review-template.md 1.3 KB
- usage-prompts.md 4.1 KB
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 170 lines · 154 tokens per session scan A 940083a84ef6
river-review-discipline is a skill published in the GitHub repository s977043/river-review (3 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 154 tokens to every session and 3,540 once invoked, about $0.0008 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.
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…
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.
omnicreate-gitlab
Use when creating a GitLab merge request (OmniForge). Auto-populates title and description from commits, supports draft MRs, labels, assignees, reviewers, and issue linking.
logic-diff
Compare two code versions for semantic equivalence via semi-formal tracing of both versions side-by-side. Trigger when the user shares a refactor, rewrite, migration, or A/B implementation and wants to confirm behavior is unchanged — "did I break anything", "is this equivalent", "are these equivalent", "semantically…