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-roadmap-review-checksgit 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-review-checks)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-roadmap-review-checks"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-roadmap-review-checks/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-review-checks"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-roadmap-review-checks.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 | $0.00025 | $0.00632 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00253 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00126 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00063 |
Grade A, and why
nw-roadmap-review-checks 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 — 77 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Roadmap Review Checks
Six mandatory checks for every roadmap review. Each produces a finding block.
Check 1: External Validity
Verify completing all steps produces an INVOCABLE feature, not just existing code.
Criteria: at least one step targets entry point integration | acceptance tests invoke through driving ports | clear user invocation path after completion
Severity: BLOCKER if no integration step or invocation path. HIGH if tests at wrong boundary.
EXTERNAL VALIDITY CHECK: PASSED|FAILED
Issue: {missing wiring}
Consequence: {what happens without fix}
Required Action: {integration step to add}
Check 2: AC Implementation Coupling
Scan AC for implementation details locking crafter into predetermined structure.
Detection: underscore-prefixed identifiers | method signatures with params | internal class references | specific return types
Severity: HIGH. Flag each coupled AC with rewrite.
- Coupled:
_install_des_module() copies src/des/ - Rewritten:
DES module importable from installation target after install
Rationale: AC = WHAT (observable behavior), never HOW (internal structure). Crafter decides during GREEN + REFACTOR.
Check 3: Step Decomposition Ratio
Calculation: implementation steps / unique production files in files_to_modify
Thresholds: acceptable <= 2.0 | warning 2.0-2.5 | reject > 2.5
Identical pattern check: 3+ steps with identical AC differing by substitution -> require batching.
Check 4: Implementation Code in Roadmap
Verify no implementation code. BLOCKER.
Detection: code snippets/algorithms in descriptions | method implementations in AC | pseudocode/logic | variable names, loops, conditionals
Architect defines WHAT; crafter decides HOW. Roadmap code prevents better solutions via TDD.
Check 5: Roadmap Concision and Precision
Quantitative thresholds: total words 500 (1-3 steps) / 1500 (4-8) / 3000 (9-15) | step description max 50 words | AC max 5 per step, 30 words each | notes max 100 words
Verbosity detection: multi-sentence blocks -> bullets | qualifiers (comprehensive, robust) -> delete | motivational language -> delete | redundancy -> state once | tutorials -> delete, assume expertise
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 · 77 lines · 25 tokens per session scan A c1e7f662d60c
nw-roadmap-review-checks is a skill published in the GitHub repository nWave-ai/nWave (620 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 25 tokens to every session and 632 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
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.