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 felipecabargas/gambit --skill verify-acceptance-criteriagit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/felipecabargas/gambitWrote 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/felipecabargas/gambit/verify-acceptance-criteria)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/felipecabargas/gambit/verify-acceptance-criteria"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/felipecabargas/gambit/verify-acceptance-criteria/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/felipecabargas/gambit/verify-acceptance-criteria"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/felipecabargas/gambit/verify-acceptance-criteria.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 | $0.00159 | $0.01949 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00079 | $0.00975 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00032 | $0.00390 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00195 |
Grade A, and why
verify-acceptance-criteria 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 239 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Acceptance Criteria Verifier
When to Use
Use this skill to evaluate acceptance criteria quality. It's most valuable when:
- Reviewing criteria before development starts (catch issues early)
- Auditing existing criteria that have caused confusion or rework
- Ensuring criteria align with product standards
- Converting vague requirements into precise, testable statements
- Preparing criteria for team handoff to engineering
Input Format
The skill accepts acceptance criteria in multiple formats:
- Plain text: A list pasted directly into the message
- Markdown: Bullet points or numbered lists
- CSV/Excel: Uploaded spreadsheet files
- JSON: Structured data
- Mixed: Any combination of the above
Example inputs:
Given the user is logged in
When they navigate to the dashboard
Then they should see a list of their recent items
Or:
- Display loads within 2 seconds
- All product images render correctly
- User can filter by category
Evaluation Framework
Each acceptance criterion is evaluated against five dimensions of quality:
1. Clarity & Conciseness
- Is the language plain and unambiguous?
- Can all stakeholders interpret it the same way?
- Is it free of jargon or unexplained terms?
- Does it say exactly one thing, clearly?
Critical Issues: Ambiguous terms with multiple interpretations
Major Issues: Vague language; jargon without definition
Minor Issues: Wordy phrasing that could be tightened
2. Testability
- Can this criterion be objectively verified?
- Can it be mapped to one or more executable tests?
- Is there a clear pass/fail outcome?
- Would a QA engineer know exactly how to test it?
Critical Issues: No way to objectively verify the criterion
Major Issues: Testability requires subjective judgment; unclear success state
Minor Issues: Testable but the test path is not obvious
3. Outcome-Focused
- Does it describe the result, not the recipe?
- Does it focus on what the user experiences?
- Is it free of implementation details?
- Does it avoid prescribing the "how"?
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 · 239 lines · 159 tokens per session scan A 9ad6b92996c6
verify-acceptance-criteria is a skill published in the GitHub repository felipecabargas/gambit (2 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 159 tokens to every session and 1,949 once invoked, about $0.0008 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
vr-planner
Plans how to verify changes to an os-autoinst-distri-opensuse (OSADO) checkout. Use this skill when the user asks "how do I test my change", "what verification run (VR) should I do", "which openQA job should I clone", or "what's affected by my edit". Determines required unit tests, affected test modules, YAML…
openqa-log-analyzer
A specialized skill for analyzing openQA logs — triage failures, measure command timing, detect infrastructure lag, extract command output, and compare runs across multiple log files.
local-lint-test
Recommends the fastest local commands to validate edited OSADO code before pushing. Activate when the user asks "how do I check my code", "what should I run locally", "lint my changes", "does this compile", "run perltidy", "run perlcritic", "run a unit test", "check formatting", or after editing files to verify…
test-catalog
Add or audit a Perldoc documentation header on an OSADO test module following the test catalog standard. Use when a user asks to "add header", "document", or "add catalog header" to a Perl test module.
unit-test-wizard
Writes and reviews OSADO Perl unit tests for library modules in lib/. Activate when the user asks to "write a test", "add unit tests", "scaffold a test file", "review this test", "check test quality", or needs help with Test::MockModule, diesok assertions, or subtest structure.
seo-page
Single-page SEO audit: deep content quality evaluation using Google's E-E-A-T framework, Helpful Content guidelines, on-page SEO factors, search intent alignment, technical signals, and readability analysis. Fetches GSC performance data for that specific page, crawls the live HTML, evaluates metadata, schema markup…