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 test-naminggit 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/test-naming)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/s977043/river-review/test-naming"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/s977043/river-review/test-naming/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/test-naming"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/s977043/river-review/test-naming.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 | $0.00021 | $0.00804 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00322 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00161 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00080 |
Grade A, and why
Test Naming and Structure 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 1mo 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
Pattern declaration
Primary pattern: Reviewer Secondary patterns: Inversion Why: テスト命名・構造チェックはチェックリスト型評価が主だが、テストファイルが差分に含まれない場合は実行を止める必要がある。
Rule / ルール
- describe/it/test の命名を一貫させ、期待される振る舞いを明示する
- 正常系だけでなく境界・異常系もテストする
- テストデータの重複を避け、セットアップは共通化する
Heuristics
it('works')のような曖昧な名前- 異常系テストや境界値が欠落
- 重複したモックデータやセットアップコード
Good / Bad Examples
- Good:
it('returns 422 when payload is invalid') - Bad:
it('should work') - Good: 境界値・例外ケースを含む複数の it ブロック
Actions / 改善案
- 期待されるステータスや値を含む名前に変更する
- エラーケース・境界値のテストを追加する
- beforeEach/ヘルパーでセットアップを共通化する
Non-goals / 扱わないこと
- テストフレームワークの選定や移行。
- テストケース自体の追加・削除の大規模再設計。
- 実装コードの命名改善。
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。
- 差分にテストファイル（
*.test.*,*.spec.*）の変更が含まれている - 差分にテストの命名・構造に影響する変更がある（コメントやフォーマットのみの変更ではない）
- inputContextにdiffが含まれている
ゲート不成立時の出力: NO_REVIEW: test-naming — テスト命名・構造チェックの対象となるテスト変更が検出されない
False-positive guards / 抑制条件
- 既存の命名規約に沿った変更であり、差分で逸脱がない。
- テストが自動生成され、命名規約が別途管理されている。
評価指標（Evaluation）
- 合格基準: 指摘が差分に紐づき、根拠と次アクションが説明されている。
- 不合格基準: 差分と無関係な指摘、根拠のない断定、抑制条件の無視。
人間に返す条件（Human Handoff）
- 仕様や意図が不明確で解釈が分かれる場合は質問として返す。
- 影響範囲が広い設計判断やトレードオフは人間レビューへ返す。
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 78 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A e19645e9643f
Test Naming and Structure is a skill published in the GitHub repository s977043/river-review (7 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 804 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
run-iteration-eval
Run the Logic-Lens content-eval pipeline for one iteration and produce a scored summary.json — use to measure a skill change. Wraps scripts/run-content-evals.sh (runner, costs tokens) and scripts/grade-iteration.py (grader, free, re-runnable). ALWAYS sync the plugin cache first. Use when the user wants to "run the…
iterate-skill
Run the Logic-Lens skill-improvement loop end to end — baseline → diagnose failures → edit → sync cache → re-eval → verify net gain → iterate until clean. Use whenever the goal is to RAISE a skill's eval score or fix a failing eval mode: "improve logic-review", "the format compliance is failing, fix it", "iterate on…
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…
vibe-gap-analysis
Assesses production readiness or audits a codebase against its specs. Supports quick static mode, deep 17-dimension audit, or single-dimension focus. Use before a production launch, after a major refactor, when inheriting a codebase, or when someone asks how done the project is.
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.
shipyard-verification
Requires fresh verification evidence before any claim that work is complete, fixed, or passing. Use before committing, creating PRs, or moving to the next task. Also use when a status report contains words like "should", "probably", or "seems to", or expresses satisfaction ("Great!", "Done!") before verification…