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-reviewgit 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-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-review/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-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-review.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 | $0.00029 | $0.01812 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00906 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00362 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00181 |
Grade A, and why
nw-review 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 6d 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 — 146 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
NW-REVIEW: Expert Critique and Quality Assurance
Wave: CROSS_WAVE Agent: Dynamic (nw-*-reviewer)
Overview
Dispatches expert reviewer agent to critique workflow artifacts. Takes base agent name, appends -reviewer, invokes with artifact. Reviewer agent owns all review methodology|criteria|output format.
Review Philosophy: Radical Candor
Every review MUST embody Radical Candor — kind AND clear, specific AND sincere:
- Care personally: Acknowledge what works. Understand author's intent before critiquing. Include at least one genuine
praise:per review. - Challenge directly: Be specific about what is wrong and WHY. Ground feedback in evidence|consequences, not preference. Never soften security/data-loss issues.
- Avoid ruinous empathy: Never "LGTM" when real issues exist. Hedging ("maybe consider possibly...") on blocking concerns is a review failure.
- Avoid obnoxious aggression: Never "this is terrible" without constructive alternative. Focus on work, not author. Explain "why" behind every critique.
Feedback Format: Conventional Comments
All findings MUST use Conventional Comments labels:
| Label | Purpose | Blocking? |
|---|---|---|
praise: |
Highlight something done well (genuine, not filler) | No |
issue (blocking): |
Must be resolved before proceeding | Yes |
issue (blocking, security): |
Security vulnerability — maximum directness | Yes |
suggestion: |
Propose improvement with reasoning | Mark (blocking) or (non-blocking) |
nitpick (non-blocking): |
Trivial, preference-based | No |
question (non-blocking): |
Seek clarification before assuming | No |
thought (non-blocking): |
Idea sparked by the review | No |
Findings MUST be priority-ordered: blocking issues first, then suggestions, then nitpicks/praise.
Approval Criteria
| Verdict | Criteria |
|---|---|
| APPROVED | No blocking issues. Non-blocking feedback is advisory. |
| NEEDS_REVISION | Blocking issues exist. Author must address. Each blocking issue enumerated. |
| REJECTED | Fundamental design problems requiring significant rework. Rare — explain thoroughly, offer alternatives. |
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.
- 6d ago First seen · 146 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A a576451fd9dc
nw-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository nWave-ai/nWave (610 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 29 tokens to every session and 1,812 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 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
orchestrated-execution
Execute work units through the rigorous 4-phase Metaswarm cycle (Implement -> Validate -> Adversarial Review -> Commit) with independent quality gate enforcement.
team-implement
Executes and verifies implementation slices. Trigger on "implement this", "execute the plan", or "/team-implement" only; never infer the phase from a ready plan.
prune
Run all quality lenses (validate, simplify), aggregate findings into a design doc, then drive the full feature chain (PRD → TDD → PR) to fix them systematically.
Pair Programming
AI-assisted pair programming with multiple modes (driver/navigator/switch), real-time verification, quality monitoring, and comprehensive testing. Supports TDD, debugging, refactoring, and learning sessions. Features automatic role switching, continuous code review, security scanning, and performance optimization with…
learn-from-sage
Detection-gap (miss) analysis for Code Review Sage. Learn from shipped fixes, acted-on human comments, and design outcomes to close reviewer blind spots. Inline during review stages a candidate; a human triggers a one-shot AI consolidation into the live ruleset.
requesting-code-review
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements.