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 | $0.00019 | $0.01260 |
| Sonnet 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 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 — 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.
- 4d ago Changed · +144 lines · +39 tokens per session 626325fd14c9
- 11d 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 (610 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 2,521 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
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.
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.
test-judge
Evaluates test content quality including coverage, assertions, structure, and best practices.
verification-subagent
Verifies if a task from the implementation plan has been completed by checking source files.