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-review-workflowgit 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-workflow)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-review-workflow"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-review-workflow/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-workflow"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-review-workflow.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 | $0.00734 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00367 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00147 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00073 |
Grade A, and why
nw-review-workflow 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 — 81 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Agent Review Workflow
V2 Validation Checklist (11 Points)
Run against every agent under review. Each item pass/fail.
- Frontmatter format:
---delimited YAML withnameanddescription - Size compliance: Under 400 lines; domain knowledge in Skills
- Divergence-only: Only behaviors diverging from Claude defaults
- Calm language: No "CRITICAL", "MANDATORY", "ABSOLUTE"
- Examples present: 3-5 canonical for critical/subtle behaviors
- Least privilege tools: Minimum needed in frontmatter
- maxTurns set: Present in frontmatter
- Platform safety: Via frontmatter/hooks, not prose
- Affirmative phrasing: "Do X" not "Don't do Y"
- Consistent terminology: One term per concept
- Clear delegation: Description states when to delegate
Scoring Methodology
Per-Dimension Scoring
For each of 7 critique dimensions (from critique-dimensions skill):
- Pass: All checks satisfied
- Fail: One or more checks not satisfied
Verdict Logic
IF any high-severity dimension fails:
verdict = "revisions_needed"
ELIF count(medium-severity failures) >= 3:
verdict = "revisions_needed"
ELSE:
verdict = "approved"
High-severity: template_compliance, size_and_focus, safety_implementation, priority_validation Medium-severity: divergence_quality, language_and_tone, examples_quality
Evidence Requirements
Every finding includes: Dimension (which of 7) | Severity (high/medium/low) | Finding (observed, with line numbers/counts) | Recommendation (specific fix action)
Common V1 to V2 Migration Issues
| Residual Pattern | What to Flag |
|---|---|
| Embedded YAML config blocks | Should be frontmatter or removed |
activation-instructions section |
Remove -- Claude Code handles activation |
IDE-FILE-RESOLUTION section |
Remove -- not needed in v2 |
commands with 10+ entries |
Reduce to 3-5 focused |
Inline embed_knowledge |
Extract to Skills |
| 5+ "production frameworks" | Remove -- platform handles safety |
CRITICAL: prefixed instructions |
Rephrase as calm direct statements |
| Python/YAML safety code examples | Remove -- aspirational, not executable |
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 · 81 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A d02a9be6fa33
nw-review-workflow is a skill published in the GitHub repository nWave-ai/nWave (610 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 734 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.