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 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/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/lerianstudio/ring/validating-acceptance-criteria"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/lerianstudio/ring/validating-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 | $0.00100 | $0.00816 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00040 | $0.00326 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $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 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 — 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.
- 1mo 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 (218 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 100 tokens to every session and 816 once invoked, about $0.0004 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
mutation-test
Mutation testing with two engines. Uses the project's NATIVE mutation runner (StrykerJS / Infection / mutmut / PIT / cargo-mutants) when one is configured — installing it on explicit consent when it is not — for a reproducible, comparable score; and an LLM-guided engine for the mutation classes native mutators cannot…
write-tests
Write tests for existing production code. Processes ONE file at a time through a full pipeline: analyze, inventory (frozen BEFORE writing), write, executable coverage gate, verify, blind coverage audit, adversarial review, log. Uses CodeSift for discovery and analysis when available. Modes: [path] (specific target)…
code-audit
Batch audit of production files against CQ1-CQ40 quality gates and CAP1-CAP29 anti-patterns. Tiered output (A/B/C/D), critical gate enforcement, evidence-backed scoring, cross-file pattern analysis, and prioritized execution plan. Flags: zuvo:code-audit all | [path] | [file] | --deep | --quick | --services |…
plan
Analyzes architecture, selects patterns, assesses testability, then decomposes work into ordered TDD tasks with exact verification commands and explicit acceptance mapping. Works from an approved spec (zuvo:brainstorm output) or directly from a user-provided description.
pentest
Hybrid white-box + black-box penetration testing across 7 dimensions (PT1-PT7). Stack-aware source-to-sink tracing, exploit verification, CMS overlay, and deterministic finding aggregation. Uses explicit candidate schemas, canonical-key deduplication, score caps, and MUST-GATE enforcement. Flags: zuvo:pentest [path] |…
api-audit
API and endpoint integrity audit across 10 dimensions (D1-D10) plus optional contract stability (D11) and optional OWASP API Security Top 10 (D12: BOLA/BOPLA/BFLA, mass assignment, JWT alg-confusion, GraphQL introspection). Covers validation, payloads, pagination, errors, caching, HTTP semantics, waterfalls, rate…