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 agentmods add skills/lerianstudio/ring/validating-acceptance-criterianpx skills add LerianStudio/ring --skill validating-acceptance-criteriagit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/LerianStudio/ringWrote 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/lerianstudio/ring/validating-acceptance-criteria)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/lerianstudio/ring/validating-acceptance-criteria"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lerianstudio/ring/validating-acceptance-criteria.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00100 | $0.00816 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00050 | $0.00408 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00163 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00082 |
Grade A, and why
ring:validating-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 3d 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 — 112 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Validation Gate (Gate 5)
When to use
- After review gate passes (Gate 4)
- Implementation and tests complete
- Need user sign-off on acceptance criteria
Skip when
- Not inside a development cycle (ring:running-dev-cycle or ring:running-dev-cycle-frontend)
- Task is documentation-only, configuration-only, or non-code
- No implementation or tests were produced
Sequence
Runs after: ring:reviewing-code
Related
Complementary: ring:running-dev-cycle, ring:reviewing-code
Validates acceptance criteria and requires explicit user approval.
Self-approval PROHIBITED. If you implemented the code, you CANNOT approve it. Wait for user or different reviewer.
Approval Authority
| Who | Can Approve? |
|---|---|
| User (original requester) | ✅ YES |
| Different agent/human | ✅ YES |
| Same agent that implemented | ❌ NO — self-approval prohibited |
Step 1: Build Validation Report
Map each acceptance criterion to evidence (tests, PRs, manual verification):
## Validation Results
| AC # | Criterion | Evidence | Status | Severity |
|------|-----------|----------|--------|----------|
| AC-1 | {criterion} | {tests pass / file:line / manual} | MET / NOT MET / PARTIAL | - / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW |
Severity calibration:
- CRITICAL: acceptance criterion completely unmet
- HIGH: criterion partially met or performance degraded
- MEDIUM: edge case or non-critical gap (main path works)
- LOW: code works but quality suboptimal
Step 2: Present to User
## Gate 5: Validation
### Summary
- Task: {unit_id}
- ACs: {N}/{total} met
- Recommendation: APPROVED / REJECTED
### Validation Table
{validation_table from Step 1}
### Issues (if any)
| Severity | AC # | Description | Recommendation |
|----------|------|-------------|----------------|
### Decision Required
Reply with one of:
- APPROVED — proceed to completion
- REJECTED — return to Gate 0 with comments
- FIX {AC#} then APPROVED — fix specific items first
Step 3: Interpret Response
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 112 lines · 100 tokens per session scan A 2d0933cdeeae
ring:validating-acceptance-criteria is a skill published in the GitHub repository LerianStudio/ring (211 stars, last pushed 17d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 100 tokens to every session and 816 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
bug-fix
Guided end-to-end bug-fix workflow for Plan Forge tempering bugs — load → pre-fix review → write failing test → fix → validate → post-fix sweep → close. Composes /code-review, /clean-code-review, /forge-quench, and /test-sweep around the forgebug tool surface so a fix never closes without a regression check.
ui-scaffold
Scaffold a new Blazor page with proper layering — service interface, page component (markup + code-behind split), DTO, validation, error handling, and bUnit test. Enforces architecture-principles + blazor-fluent-ui conventions. Use when adding any new UI surface to a Blazor Server app.
infra-test
Run the full IaC test suite — Bicep linting, ARM TTK (if applicable), Terraform validate, Pester unit and integration tests. Use before deploying or after making infrastructure changes.
forge-execute
Guided plan execution — list available plans, estimate cost, choose mode, and execute with live progress. Use when you want to run a hardened plan through the orchestrator.
test-sweep
Run all test suites (unit, integration, API, E2E) and aggregate results into a summary report. Use after completing execution slices or before the Review Gate.
audit-loop
Run a recursive audit drain loop — discover findings from the running system, triage each into bug/spec/classifier lanes, repeat until convergence. USE FOR: end-to-end audit of a deployed or locally-running app, draining findings to zero. DO NOT USE FOR: single-shot tempering runs (use forgetemperingrun), one-off bug…