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-plan-reviewgit 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-plan-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/s977043/river-review/test-plan-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/s977043/river-review/test-plan-review/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-plan-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/s977043/river-review/test-plan-review.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 | $0.00044 | $0.01125 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00022 | $0.00562 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00225 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00112 |
Grade A, and why
テスト観点レビュー(差分ドリブン) 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
Pattern declaration
Primary pattern: Reviewer Secondary patterns: Inversion Why: テスト観点レビューはチェックリスト型評価が主だが、実行パスへ影響するコード変更が差分にない場合は実行を止める必要がある。
Goal / 目的
- 差分で増えた挙動に対して、抜けやすいテスト観点を洗い出し、最小限のテストケース案を優先度付きで提示する。
Non-goals / 扱わないこと
- 完成したテストコードを書くこと。フレームワークの宗教論争(Jest/Vitest 等)は避ける。
- 既存テストが差分を十分にカバーしている場合に、無用な追加を要求しない。
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。
- 差分にソースコード(
src/**/*,lib/**/*)またはテストファイル(*.test.*,*.spec.*,tests/**/*)の変更が含まれている - 実行パスへ影響する変更が差分に含まれている(ドキュメントや設定値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-plan-review — テスト観点レビューの対象となるコード変更が検出されない
False-positive guards / 抑制条件
- すでにテスト差分が含まれ十分なカバレッジが見える場合は
NO_ISSUES。
Rule / ルール
- 影響範囲の分解
- 変更された機能/データ/契約/権限/失敗パスを列挙し、どこが新規/変更/削除かを整理。
- 観点の抽出
- 正常系・異常系(バリデーション、認可、タイムアウト、リトライ、境界値、並行実行)・データ永続化・互換性(前方/後方)を観点ごとにまとめる。
- テストケース案(最大 6 件)
- 各ケースで「前提/操作/期待」を 1 行ずつ書く。クリティカルパスを優先。
- 既存テストがあれば補強ポイントだけを示す(例: ブランチカバレッジ不足)。
- リスクと優先度
- 見逃すと障害・データ破壊・セキュリティインシデントにつながる箇所は
severity=critical|majorを明記。
- 見逃すと障害・データ破壊・セキュリティインシデントにつながる箇所は
- 情報不足時の質問
- 要件・仕様が不明な箇所は仮説として記し、確認質問を添える。
Output / 出力
- すべて日本語。
<file>:<line>: <message>形式。場所不明は(summary):1:や(test-case):1:を使う。 - Summary 1 行の後にテストケース案を列挙:
TestCase: <前提> | <操作> | <期待> [severity=critical|major|minor] - 質問は
[q] <内容>として短く書く。最大 10 行。
評価指標(Evaluation)
- 合格: 差分に紐づくテスト観点が整理され、優先度付きの最小ケース案と確認質問がある。
- 不合格: 差分と無関係な一般論、既存テストを無視した過剰要求、根拠のない断定。
人間に返す条件(Human Handoff)
- 仕様が未確定でテスト期待値を断定できない場合。
- 互換性ポリシーやリリース方針が不明で、テスト範囲の判断が分かれる場合。
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 · 91 lines · 44 tokens per session scan A 074bc29a20d3
テスト観点レビュー(差分ドリブン) is a skill published in the GitHub repository s977043/river-review (3 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 44 tokens to every session and 1,125 once invoked, about $0.0002 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.