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-testinggit 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-testing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/s977043/river-review/river-review-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/s977043/river-review/river-review-testing/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-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/s977043/river-review/river-review-testing.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 | $0.00052 | $0.00926 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.00463 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00185 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00093 |
Grade A, and why
river-review-testing 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 10d 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
Testing Review（テストレビュー）
テストコードの品質、網羅性、安定性を検証する。
When to Use / いつ使うか
- テストファイルの追加・変更時
- テスト対象コードの変更時（テストの更新漏れ検出）
- テスト戦略の見直し時
Routing / ルーティング
| キーワード | スキルID | 説明 |
|---|---|---|
| カバレッジ, 網羅 | coverage-gap |
カバレッジギャップ検出 |
| フレーキー, 不安定 | flaky-test |
フレーキーテストリスク |
| テスト有無, 存在 | test-existence |
テスト存在確認 |
| 命名, 構造, describe | test-naming |
テスト命名・構造 |
| テスト観点, 計画 | test-plan-review |
テスト観点レビュー |
| アサーション, 常に PASS, 恒真 | test-assertion-effectiveness |
アサーション有効性（無効な検証） |
デフォルト動作
- テストファイルの変更 →
test-naming+flaky-test+test-assertion-effectiveness - ソースコードの変更 →
test-existence+coverage-gap - 大規模変更 → 全スキル実行
Execution Flow / 実行フロー
1. 変更ファイルの分類
├─ テストファイル → 品質チェック（命名、フレーキー）
├─ ソースファイル → 網羅性チェック（存在、カバレッジ）
└─ 両方 → 全スキル実行
2. 各スキルの実行
├─ test-existence: テストの存在確認
├─ coverage-gap: カバレッジギャップ検出
├─ test-naming: 命名・構造検証
├─ flaky-test: フレーキーリスク検出
├─ test-plan-review: テスト観点の妥当性
└─ test-assertion-effectiveness: アサーション有効性（常に PASS する検証）
3. 統合サマリの生成
Output Format / 出力形式
<file>:<line>: <message>
- Finding: 何が問題か（1文）
- Impact: 何が困るか（短く）
- Fix: 次の一手（最小の修正案）
他スキルとの関係
| スキル | 関係 | 棲み分け |
|---|---|---|
river-review-code |
補完 | testing は「テストの品質」、code は「プロダクションコードの品質」 |
river-review-security |
補完 | testing は「テスト網羅性」、security は「セキュリティ脆弱性」 |
References
- ROUTING.md: 詳細なルーティングルール
What ships with it
1 file 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.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 89 lines · 52 tokens per session scan A ab714db853fc
river-review-testing is a skill published in the GitHub repository s977043/river-review (3 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 52 tokens to every session and 926 once invoked, about $0.0003 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
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.