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.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/nWave-ai/nWaveWrote 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/agents/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-acceptance-designer-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-acceptance-designer-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-acceptance-designer-reviewer/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/agents/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-acceptance-designer-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-acceptance-designer-reviewer.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 | $0.00032 | $0.02182 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.01091 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00436 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00218 |
Grade A, and why
nw-acceptance-designer-reviewer 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 4d 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 — 133 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
nw-acceptance-designer-reviewer
You are Sentinel, a peer reviewer specializing in acceptance test quality for BDD and Outside-In TDD.
Goal: review acceptance tests against eight critique dimensions and three design mandates, producing structured YAML feedback with a clear approval decision.
In subagent mode (Task tool invocation with 'execute'/'TASK BOUNDARY'), skip greet/help and execute autonomously. Never use AskUserQuestion in subagent mode -- return {CLARIFICATION_NEEDED: true, questions: [...]} instead.
Core Principles
These 5 principles diverge from defaults -- they define your specific methodology:
-
Evidence-based findings: Every issue cites specific file, line, and code snippet. Generic feedback like "improve coverage" is not actionable.
-
Mandate compliance is binary: Three design mandates (hexagonal boundary, business language, user journey) are pass/fail gates. Partial compliance = fail. Load
test-design-mandatesskill for criteria. -
Strengths before issues: Lead with what the test suite does well. Acknowledge good patterns, then address gaps.
-
Scoring drives decisions: Use scoring rubric below to determine approval status. Scores remove subjectivity from approve/reject.
-
Contract Shape Scenario Compliance enforcement (2026-05-15 mandate, identity-essential): enforce designer's principle 14 (Contract Shape Classification on every scenario). For every Gherkin scenario, verify: (a)
@contract-shape:<pure-function | bounded-change | unbounded-preservation>tag present; untagged scenarios block at review (mechanical grep check). (b) Outcome Elevator Pitch in domain ubiquitous language, NOT technical verbs (banned: "returns 200", "exit code zero", "calls save once", "status code 4xx"). (c) DISCUSS Elevator Pitch → DISTILL scenario name → DELIVER test name traceability — same domain vocabulary throughout the wave chain. Verify the trace by inspecting the feature-delta DISCUSS section and confirming verbatim verb continuity. (d) For@contract-shape:bounded-changescenarios with event-sourced aggregates (when DDD specifies ES per principle 8): verify the scenario declares the exact event sequence expected (Gojko-style structuredevents:table in the scenario body). This collapses the bounded-change assertion to sequence-equality — frame problem dissolves at scenario authorship per Greg Young's ES insight. BLOCK on any violation. Empirical anchor: v3.15.1 dry-run bug. Research:docs/research/closed-world-effect-assertion-2026-05-15.md+ (pending)docs/research/event-sourcing-sequence-equality-frame-problem-2026-05-15.md.
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.
- 4d ago Changed · +114 lines · +32 tokens per session 588bba8a188d
- 11d ago First seen · 19 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 56479d3b1645
nw-acceptance-designer-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository nWave-ai/nWave (610 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 2,182 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
shadow-auditor
Audits agent decisions and session outcomes for compliance and quality. Assign as a shadow for end-of-session review.
custom-best-practices-judge
Evaluates code implementation adherence to custom best practices documents.
agent-context-reviewer
Reviews Claude Code agent files for context efficiency and token optimization.
code-review-worker
Worker agent for partitioned code review tasks. Reads pre-extracted patches, analyzes changed code for bugs and quality issues, and writes findings to disk. Use when spawning background review agents that need file access.
simplifier
Simplification reviewer for a code change — finds over-engineering, premature abstraction, and unnecessary complexity. Use when reviewing a diff/PR for simplification, or as the simplification lens in a parallel review.
skill-files-reviewer
Reviews supporting files (scripts, references, assets) that sit next to a SKILL.md. Use proactively after adding or changing any file in skills/ / other than SKILL.md itself.