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-quality-frameworkgit 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-quality-framework)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-quality-framework"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-quality-framework/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-quality-framework"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-quality-framework.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 2 findings, up to high
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- high Tool Misuse · line 105 Tool parameters are crafted to achieve unintended or unsafe behavior. Parameter abuse can bypass intended safety checks (e.g. shell=True, --force, dangerous glob patterns).Fix: Validate all tool parameters against an allowlist. Reject dangerous parameter values (shell=True, --force, -rf /) and use safe defaults.
- medium Agent Snooping · line 223 Skill enumerates or reads other installed skills. Access to other skills' SKILL.md files or the skills directory reveals prompt instructions, capabilities, and secrets that should be invisible to peer skills.Fix: Remove all code or instructions that list or read other skills' files or directories. Skills should operate independently; cross-skill access is a privilege escalation.
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 | $0.00023 | $0.02942 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00009 | $0.01177 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00588 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00294 |
Grade A, and why
nw-quality-framework 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 — 224 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Quality Framework
Commit Readiness Gates (11)
All pass before committing:
- Active acceptance test passes (not skipped, not ignored)
- All unit tests pass
- All integration tests pass
- All other enabled tests pass
- Code formatting validation passes
- Static analysis passes
- Build validation passes (all projects)
- No test skips in execution (ignores OK during progressive implementation)
- Test count within behavior budget
- No mocks inside hexagon
- Business language in tests verified
Note: Reviewer approval (formerly Gate 12) and Testing Theater detection (formerly Gate 13) enforced at deliver-level Phase 4 (Adversarial Review via /nw-review), not per step.
Quality Gates by Category
- Architecture: all layers touched | integration points validated | stack proven E2E | pipeline functional
- Implementation: real functionality (not placeholders) | automated pipeline | happy path coverage | production patterns
- Business Value: meaningful user value | testable AC | measurable success metrics
- Real Data: golden masters present | edge cases tested | no silent errors | API assumptions documented
- Test Integrity: every test falsifiable | behavioral assertions only | no circular verification | no mock-dominated tests | no assertion-free tests | no fixture theater (see below)
Testing Theater Pattern 8: Fixture Theater
Definition: Acceptance tests pass because test fixtures create the expected end-state directly, rather than exercising production code through the driving port. Tests verify the correct outcome from the WRONG source.
Detection: After GREEN phase, run git diff --name-only. If files_to_modify
from the roadmap step have NO changes but tests flipped from RED to GREEN, this is
Fixture Theater. The test fixtures are implementing the feature, not production code.
Litmus test: Delete the new production code (or revert production files to pre-GREEN state). If tests still pass, it's Fixture Theater.
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 · 224 lines · 23 tokens per session scan A a2225528f8de
nw-quality-framework is a skill published in the GitHub repository nWave-ai/nWave (621 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 23 tokens to every session and 2,942 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.
strict-tdd
Strict RED->GREEN->REFACTOR test-driven development with enforcement. Never write production code before a failing test. Atomic commits per TDD cycle.
sup-coding
Coding workflow recipe (brainstorm → design → spec → plan → implement → review → verify → finish).
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.
cmux-testing
Choose scoped cmux verification, add behavioral tests, and validate Swift test targets and wiring. Use when adding tests or deciding what local/CI evidence a change needs.
test-then-commit
Implements a small change and commits it. Use when the user asks for a quick fix with a commit.