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-review-samplegit 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-review-sample)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/s977043/river-review/test-review-sample"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/s977043/river-review/test-review-sample/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-review-sample"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/s977043/river-review/test-review-sample.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 | $0.00015 | $0.00562 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00281 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00112 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00056 |
Grade A, and why
Sample Test Coverage Review 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 9d 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
Goal / 目的
- テスト差分から、カバレッジ不足・失敗系の抜け・フレークのリスクを “薄く” 拾うサンプルです。
Non-goals / 扱わないこと
- 変更と無関係な一般論（「テストを増やすべき」だけ）を言わない。
- 既存のテスト設計方針を断定して押し付けない。
False-positive guards / 抑制条件
- 変更がテストの整形/リネームのみで意味が変わらない場合は深入りしない。
Rule / ルール
- 正常系だけでなく、境界・異常系（入力不正、権限、例外、タイムアウト）を優先する。
- フレーク要因（時刻、乱数、外部依存、並列実行）を見つけたら指摘する。
- 指摘は差分に紐づけ、最小の追加テスト案を 1 つ添える。
Output / 出力
<file>:<line>: <message>形式で 1 行ずつ（日本語、短く）。
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 65 lines · 15 tokens per session scan A cb986c6e0ab0
Sample Test Coverage Review is a skill published in the GitHub repository s977043/river-review (3 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 15 tokens to every session and 562 once invoked, about $0.0001 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…
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.
testing-strategy
Design test strategies and test plans with coverage targets. Complements /draft:coverage which measures what this skill plans. Auto-loaded by /draft:implement before TDD.
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.