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 nWave-ai/nWave --skill nw-abr-critique-dimensionsgit 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/skills/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-abr-critique-dimensions)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-abr-critique-dimensions"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-abr-critique-dimensions/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/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-abr-critique-dimensions"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-abr-critique-dimensions.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 | $0.00027 | $0.01108 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00554 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00005 | $0.00222 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00111 |
Grade A, and why
nw-abr-critique-dimensions 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 11d 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.
This is a copy
92% identical to nw-ab-critique-dimensions — 5 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 108 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Agent Quality Critique Dimensions
Use these dimensions when reviewing or validating agent definitions.
Dimension 1: Template Compliance
Does the agent follow official Claude Code format?
Check: YAML frontmatter with name and description (required) | Markdown body as system prompt | No embedded YAML config blocks | No activation-instructions or IDE-FILE-RESOLUTION sections | Skills referenced in frontmatter, not inline
Severity: High -- non-compliant agents may not load correctly.
Dimension 2: Size and Focus
Check: Core definition under 400 lines | Domain knowledge in Skills | Single clear responsibility | No monolithic sections (>50 lines without structure) | No redundant Claude default behaviors
Measurement: wc -l {agent-file}. Target: 200-400 lines.
Severity: High -- oversized agents suffer context rot.
Dimension 3: Divergence Quality
Does the agent specify only what diverges from Claude defaults?
Check: No file operation instructions | No generic quality principles ("be thorough") | No tool usage guidelines | Core principles are domain-specific and non-obvious | Each instruction justifies why Claude wouldn't do this naturally
Severity: Medium -- redundant instructions waste tokens, cause overtriggering.
Dimension 4: Safety Implementation
Check: Tools restricted via frontmatter tools field | maxTurns set | No prose-based security layers (use hooks) | No embedded enterprise safety frameworks | permissionMode set for risky actions
Severity: High -- prose safety is ineffective and token-wasteful.
Dimension 5: Language and Tone
Check: No "CRITICAL:", "MANDATORY:", "ABSOLUTE" language | Direct statements ("Do X" not "You MUST X") | Affirmative phrasing ("Do Y" not "Don't do X") | Consistent terminology | No repetitive emphasis
Severity: Medium -- aggressive language causes overtriggering on Opus 4.6.
Dimension 6: Examples Quality
Check: 3-5 canonical examples present | Cover critical/subtle decisions (not obvious cases) | Good/bad paired where useful | Concise (not full implementations)
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.
- 11d ago First seen · 108 lines · 27 tokens per session scan A 523d5c3f2c54
nw-abr-critique-dimensions is a skill published in the GitHub repository nWave-ai/nWave (610 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 27 tokens to every session and 1,108 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 92% identical to nw-ab-critique-dimensions, differing in 5 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
workflow-patterns
Use this skill when implementing tasks according to Conductor's TDD workflow, handling phase checkpoints, managing git commits for tasks, or understanding the verification protocol.
engineering-workflow
A Chinese-language workflow for reliable software development. It describes exploring the problem, making a plan, using TDD (test-driven development, where tests are written before the code), debugging methodically, reviewing code, and verifying the result.
tdd-enforcement
Red-Green-Refactor TDD methodology with mandatory failing tests, minimal implementation, quality refactoring, and 80% coverage gating.
test-driven-development
Strict RED-GREEN-REFACTOR cycle enforcement. Tests are never skipped or deferred. Run mode only, never watch mode. Exit code evidence mandatory.
story-development
Implement user stories with test-driven development methodology.
tdd
A Test-Driven Development guide. TDD means writing a failing test first, adding the smallest implementation that passes it, and then improving the code while keeping the tests passing.