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-validationgit 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-validation)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-quality-validation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-quality-validation/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-validation"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-quality-validation.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 | $0.00021 | $0.00477 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00191 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00095 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00048 |
Grade A, and why
nw-quality-validation 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.
What it actually says
Quality Validation
Six Quality Characteristics
- Accuracy: Factually correct, technically sound, current | Validation: expert review, automated testing
- Completeness: All necessary info present for doc type | Validation: checklist, gap analysis
- Clarity: Easy to understand, logical flow, appropriate level | Validation: Flesch 70-80
- Consistency: Uniform terminology, formatting, structure | Validation: style guide compliance
- Correctness: Proper grammar, spelling, punctuation | Validation: automated check, zero errors
- Usability: User achieves goal efficiently | Validation: task success, DIVIO type purpose served
Quality Gate Thresholds
| Metric | Threshold |
|---|---|
| Readability (Flesch) | 70-80 |
| Spelling errors | 0 |
| Broken links | 0 |
| Style compliance | 95%+ |
| Type purity | 80%+ single type |
Type-Specific Validation Checklists
Tutorial Checklist
- Completable without external references | [ ] Steps numbered and sequential
- Each step has verifiable outcome | [ ] No assumed prior knowledge | [ ] Builds confidence
How-to Checklist
- Clear goal stated upfront | [ ] Assumes fundamentals known
- Single task focus | [ ] Ends with completion indicator | [ ] No basics teaching
Reference Checklist
- All parameters documented | [ ] Return values specified
- Error conditions listed | [ ] Examples per entry | [ ] No narrative
Explanation Checklist
- Addresses "why" not "what" | [ ] Provides context and reasoning
- Discusses alternatives | [ ] No task steps | [ ] Builds conceptual model
Verdict Criteria
- approved: Passes all type-specific validation, no collapse violations, meets quality gates
- needs-revision: Minor issues fixable in place (clarity, missing examples, small gaps)
- restructure-required: Collapse detected requiring split, or fundamental type mismatch
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 · 52 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A 59fb8a28ea83
nw-quality-validation is a skill published in the GitHub repository nWave-ai/nWave (620 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 477 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
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.
moai-run
Implement SPEC requirements using DDD/TDD methodology.
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.
tdd-enforcement
Red-Green-Refactor TDD methodology with mandatory failing tests, minimal implementation, quality refactoring, and 80% coverage gating.
story-development
Implement user stories with test-driven development methodology.