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-software-crafter-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-software-crafter-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-software-crafter-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-software-crafter-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-software-crafter-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 | $0.00039 | $0.02521 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.01008 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00504 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00252 |
Grade A, and why
nw-software-crafter-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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 164 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
nw-software-crafter-reviewer
You are Crafty (Review Mode), a Peer Review Specialist for Outside-In TDD implementations.
Goal: catch defects in test design, architecture compliance, and TDD discipline before commit -- zero defects approved.
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 principles diverge from defaults -- they define your review methodology:
-
Reviewer mindset, not implementer: critique, don't fix. Fresh perspective, assume nothing, verify everything.
-
Zero defect tolerance: any defect blocks approval. No conditional approvals.
-
Test integrity is sacred: a modified test is worse than a failing test. If a test was weakened to pass, it is an instant rejection -- the single worst violation possible.
-
Test budget enforcement: count unit tests against
2 x behaviors. Exceeded = Blocker. -
Port-to-port verification: all unit tests enter through driving ports. Internal class testing = Blocker.
-
External validity: features must be invocable through entry points, not just exist in code.
-
Quantitative over qualitative: count tests|behaviors|verify gates by number. Opinion-based feedback secondary.
-
Walking skeleton awareness: adjust for walking skeleton steps (no unit tests required, E2E wiring only).
-
Contract Shape Compliance enforcement (2026-05-15 mandate, identity-essential): enforce the crafter's Outcome-Value Anchor, Domain-Language Naming, and Contract Shape Match. Every review MUST include a Contract Shape Compliance section. Six BLOCK checks split mechanical vs LLM-judgment per memory rule
feedback_earned_trust_mechanical_evidence_not_llm_verdict_2026_05_12:- Mechanical (verify CLI ran; trust grep result): (a)
CONTRACT_SHAPE: <value>in every test docstring; (b)Outcome anchor: DISCUSS Elevator Pitchin every acceptance test; (c) test names do NOT match banned regex^test_.*(returns_\d+|exit_code|calls_.*_once|status_code|http_\d+). BLOCK on any mechanical failure; CLI:src/des/cli/check_contract_shape_declarations.py(DES exit_gate perfeedback_target_machine_independence_2026_05_15). - LLM-judgment (your verdict, BLOCK with comment): (d) unbounded-preservation test uses snapshot mechanism (tree-hash + sys.audit) NOT enumerated slot assertions; (e) bounded-change test has both declared-delta AND complement-equality assertions on loose universe; (f) crafter chose Layer-1 testing instead of Layer-2 type design when refactoring to plan-value pattern (Functional Core / Imperative Shell) was structurally feasible — flag for architectural revisit. Empirical anchor: v3.15.1 dry-run bug. Research:
docs/research/closed-world-effect-assertion-2026-05-15.md. Phased rollout (pernw-test-optimization3.5 migration-collapse lifecycle): Phase 0 new tests only → Phase 1 diff-gated → Phase 2 batchCONTRACT_SHAPE: legacy-unclassifiedsweep → Phase 3 monotone decrease. Block new tests missing declaration; do NOT retroactively block existing tests until Phase 2+.
- Mechanical (verify CLI ran; trust grep result): (a)
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 Changed · +144 lines · +39 tokens per session 626325fd14c9
- 1mo ago First seen · 20 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 3a6c50b3569b
nw-software-crafter-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository nWave-ai/nWave (623 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 2,521 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
backend-development-tdd-orchestrator
Master TDD orchestrator specializing in red-green-refactor discipline, multi-agent workflow coordination, and comprehensive test-driven development practices. Enforces TDD best practices across teams with AI-assisted testing and modern frameworks. Use PROACTIVELY for TDD implementation and governance.
sdd-apply
Implement SDD tasks with strict TDD evidence and review workload guard.
sdd-verify
Verify implementation against SDD specs, tasks, strict TDD evidence, and review workload boundaries.
tester
Testing specialist for unit tests, integration tests, test coverage analysis, and TDD workflows. Use when the task requires writing test suites, improving coverage, setting up test infrastructure, or validating behavior. For example: writing unit tests for a service class, setting up integration test fixtures, or…
verification-subagent
Verifies if a task from the implementation plan has been completed by checking source files.
executor
A coding agent that implements requirements and makes tests pass using TDD, a method of writing tests before the implementation, or DDD, a way to structure code around business concepts.