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-po-review-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-po-review-dimensions)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-po-review-dimensions"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-po-review-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-po-review-dimensions"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-po-review-dimensions.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 | $0.00032 | $0.01701 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00680 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00340 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00170 |
Grade A, and why
nw-po-review-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 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 — 177 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Requirements Quality Critique Dimensions
When invoked in review mode, apply these critique dimensions to requirements documents.
Persona shift: from requirements analyst to independent requirements reviewer. Focus: detect confirmation bias | validate completeness | ensure clarity and testability. Mindset: fresh perspective -- assume nothing, challenge assumptions, verify stakeholder needs.
Return complete YAML feedback to calling agent for display to user.
Dimension 0: Elevator Pitch Test (BLOCKING, checked first)
Every user story MUST contain an ### Elevator Pitch subsection with three lines: Before / After / Decision enabled. The reviewer checks these invariants:
- Presence: the section exists with all three lines. Missing → BLOCKING.
- Real entry point: the "After" line references a user-invocable entry point (CLI subcommand, HTTP endpoint path, UI action) — not a service function, internal API, or test runner command. Internal-only → BLOCKING.
- Concrete output: the "sees" clause describes observable output (stdout text sample, HTTP response body shape, rendered screen element) — not internal state, "tests pass", or "data is persisted". Internal state → BLOCKING.
- Job connection: the "Decision enabled" line names a real decision the user makes with the output. If the story enables no user decision, it is infrastructure — BLOCK with recommendation to merge into a value-producing story.
- Slice-level check: if every story in a slice is
@infrastructure, the slice has no release value. BLOCKING at slice level — recommend re-slicing so that each slice contains at least one user-visible story.
Return this dimension first in the YAML feedback. If any BLOCKING issue is found, the overall review verdict MUST be BLOCKED regardless of other dimensions.
Dimension 1: Confirmation Bias Detection
Technology Bias
Pattern: requirements assume specific technology without stakeholder requirement. Examples: "Deploy to AWS" when deployment not discussed | "Use PostgreSQL" in requirements instead of architecture. Detection: check for technology specifics (cloud, database, frameworks). Verify stakeholder interviews mentioned these. Severity: HIGH (constrains solution space unnecessarily).
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 · 177 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 31e932ab5bb1
nw-po-review-dimensions is a skill published in the GitHub repository nWave-ai/nWave (620 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 1,701 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
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
Use only when the user explicitly asks for TDD, a failing test, or a regression test, OR when the bug has an obvious cheap local test target. Skip when the test path is unclear, expensive, integration-heavy, or not requested.
principle-test-behavior-not-implementation
Apply when you write, change, or keep a test. Assert what the code's users can observe, so that the test fails when that behavior breaks and keeps passing when only the internals change.
moai-run
Implement SPEC requirements using DDD/TDD methodology.
strict-tdd
Strict RED->GREEN->REFACTOR test-driven development with enforcement. Never write production code before a failing test. Atomic commits per TDD cycle.