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-roadmapgit 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-roadmap)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-roadmap"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-roadmap/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-roadmap"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-roadmap.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 | $0.01701 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00680 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00340 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00170 |
Grade A, and why
nw-roadmap 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 — 170 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
NW-ROADMAP: Goal Planning
Wave: CROSS_WAVE Agent: Architect (nw-solution-architect) or domain-appropriate agent
Overview
Dispatches expert agent to fill a pre-scaffolded YAML roadmap skeleton. CLI tools handle structure; agent handles content.
Output: docs/feature/{feature-id}/deliver/roadmap.json
Usage
/nw-roadmap @nw-solution-architect "Migrate monolith to microservices"
/nw-roadmap @nw-software-crafter "Replace legacy authentication system"
/nw-roadmap @nw-product-owner "Implement multi-tenant support"
Execution Steps
You MUST execute these steps in order. Do NOT skip any.
-
Parse Parameters — Extract agent name (after @, validated against agent registry), goal description (quoted string), and derive feature-id from goal in kebab-case (e.g., "Migrate to OAuth2" -> "migrate-to-oauth2"). Gate: agent name, goal, and feature-id all resolved.
-
Scaffold Skeleton — Run
des.cli.roadmap initvia Bash BEFORE invoking agent. Gate: CLI exits 0; stop and report error on non-zero exit.
des-roadmap init \
--project-id {feature-id} \
--goal "{goal-description}" \
--output docs/feature/{feature-id}/deliver/roadmap.json
For complex projects add: --phases 3 --steps "01:3,02:2,03:1"
Do NOT write the file manually.
- Invoke Agent — Invoke the named agent via Task tool to fill skeleton TODO placeholders. Gate: agent completes without error.
@{agent-name}
Fill in the roadmap skeleton at docs/feature/{feature-id}/deliver/roadmap.json.
Replace every TODO with real content. Do NOT change the YAML structure
(phases, steps, keys). Fill in: names, descriptions, acceptance criteria,
time estimates, dependencies, and implementation_scope paths.
Goal: {goal-description}
# Test paradigm mandate (STANDING 2026-05-05) — apply per test level
GUARD — emit by deliverable_type (ADR-PST-003 / OPEN-5-A): the mandate
block below applies ONLY when `deliverable_type == application` (or when
deliverable_type is unset — application is the default). For a plugin/skill
deliverable, do NOT emit the mandate; instead include this one-line directive
in each step's `implementation_notes`:
STRUCTURAL VERIFICATION (mandatory, plugin/skill): This step ships prompt
text / config / docs, not application code, so the Hypothesis + state-delta
unit mandate does not apply. Verify the deliverable structurally — a golden
assertion (skill-lint) over the changed markdown/config asserting the
required block is present and correctly shaped — gated at CI + pre-push.
When `deliverable_type == application` (or unset), for EVERY step's
`implementation_notes`, include this directive verbatim unless the step is
documented as exempt:
TEST PARADIGM (mandatory): Unit tests for this step MUST be written as
property-based tests using Hypothesis @given strategies + state-delta
matchers (assert_state_delta over a declared universe with strict=True).
Single-example unit tests are FALLBACK only — document why in a
`# bypass:` comment if used. Acceptance scenarios MUST be framed as
Property: blocks (quantified preconditions + invariant outcomes) where
the contract supports it; classic Scenario: is fallback. Integration
and E2E tests REMAIN single-example — they verify wiring, not
invariants. Universe declaration is mandatory even when only one slot
is checked: the unchanged() predicate covers the rest.
STAGE CONTEXT (cascade): NEW code = Stage 0 (paradigm-from-day-zero,
no debt accumulates). Bug-prone legacy code = Stage 1 first (state-
delta migration captures hidden mutations, 33-75% yield), THEN Stage 2
PBT amplification (low yield by design — surface is debt-paid). Don't
expect high hit rate on Stage-1-completed surfaces; that's healthy.
See nw-tdd-methodology::Paradigm Mandate for the full debt-payoff
framing.
When a step's contract genuinely cannot be expressed as a property
(e.g., golden-file diff, exact error string, single-shot UI flow),
include in `implementation_notes`:
EXEMPT FROM PARADIGM: <one-sentence reason>. Compensate with
property-based test at <unit|integration> level on adjacent slot.
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 · 170 lines · 29 tokens per session scan A d82dc8f56530
nw-roadmap is a skill published in the GitHub repository nWave-ai/nWave (620 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 29 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 2026-09-06.
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.