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 jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers --skill verifying-acceptance-criteriagit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testersWrote 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/jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers/verifying-acceptance-criteria)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers/verifying-acceptance-criteria"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers/verifying-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/jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers/verifying-acceptance-criteria"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers/verifying-acceptance-criteria.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00055 | $0.00884 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00028 | $0.00442 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00177 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00088 |
Grade A, and why
verifying-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 8d 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 — 115 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Verifying Acceptance Criteria
Use this skill when readiness depends on evidence rather than optimism. It helps compare the stated contract of a feature with what the implementation actually proves today.
When to Use
- verify a feature against acceptance criteria before sign-off
- review a build, PR, or live environment for readiness
- separate met requirements from partial or missing behavior
- expose criteria that are too vague to verify honestly
- prepare a QA-ready verification matrix for release or handoff
Verification Rules
- Source of truth must be explicit - story, AC list, PRD slice, or ticket text.
- Do not fill requirement gaps silently - unclear criteria become
Untestable, not invented behavior. - One criterion, one verdict - split compound criteria into atomic items before judging them.
- Evidence beats intuition - every verdict should point to observable code, UI, API behavior, logs, or test evidence.
- Partial is a valid status - it is better than pretending a near-miss is complete.
Workflow
Phase 0: Gather both sides of the comparison
Collect:
- the acceptance criteria or equivalent source of truth
- implementation evidence such as code changes, screenshots, API responses, a running URL, or exploratory notes
- the environment or build under review
If either side is missing, ask for it before continuing.
Phase 1: Normalize the criteria
Convert the input into atomic criteria with stable IDs such as AC-001, AC-002, and AC-003.
If a criterion mixes multiple expectations, split it.
If a criterion is vague, keep it but mark it as a likely Untestable candidate until evidence proves otherwise.
Phase 2: Verify each criterion
Use these verdicts:
| Status | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Met | The implementation clearly satisfies the criterion |
| Partial | Some of the criterion is implemented, but not all of it |
| Not Met | No convincing evidence of implementation exists |
| Untestable | The criterion is too vague or ambiguous to verify honestly |
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 115 lines · 55 tokens per session scan A ba08cc8d7266
verifying-acceptance-criteria is a skill published in the GitHub repository jaktestowac/awesome-copilot-for-testers (113 stars, last pushed 15d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 55 tokens to every session and 884 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
fix-tests
Focus on all unit + command tests (pytest --exclude tests/integration). Make sure they pass and fix errors. If you run into anything very odd: stop, and let me know. Mutate test code first and let me know if you think you should update application code.
character-animation-qa
Review local character animation with schema checks, Playwright browser previews, frame sampling, and FFmpeg/ffprobe final output checks.
migrate-xunit-to-xunit-v3
Migrate .NET test projects from xUnit.net v2 to xunit.v3 and fix v3 breaks. Use for package/CPM conversion, OutputType=Exe, preserving the VSTest or MTP runner (including projects currently using YTest.MTP.XUnit2), incompatible TFMs, async void tests, string-to-Type attributes, custom Fact/Theory/BeforeAfterTest…
nunit
Write, run, or repair .NET tests that use NUnit. Use when a repo uses NUnit, [Test], [TestCase], [TestFixture], or NUnit3TestAdapter for VSTest or Microsoft.Testing.Platform execution. USE FOR: writing or reviewing NUnit tests; using [Test], [TestCase], [TestFixture], [SetUp], [TearDown] attributes; configuring…
crap-score
Calculates CRAP (Change Risk Anti-Patterns) for a named .NET method, class, or file. USE FOR: explicit CRAP calculation or coverage-and-complexity risk within that named target, including which tests to prioritize. DO NOT USE FOR: project-wide coverage/CRAP, plateaus, or project-wide blockers/priorities…
michel-create-packmind-dataset
Seed a local Packmind instance with a realistic dataset — one organization populated with standards, commands, and skills — so an autonomous agent can exercise its own changes against lifelike data instead of an empty app. Use this whenever you need populated Packmind data to verify a change end-to-end: reproducing a…