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-rr-critique-dimensionsgit 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-rr-critique-dimensions)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-rr-critique-dimensions"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-rr-critique-dimensions/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-rr-critique-dimensions"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-rr-critique-dimensions.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 | $0.00019 | $0.00869 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00348 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00174 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00087 |
Grade A, and why
nw-rr-critique-dimensions 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 — 101 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Critique Dimensions for Research Review
Load when reviewing research documents. Apply each dimension systematically.
Dimension 1: Source Selection Bias
Check: contradictory viewpoints included? | Multiple organizations/authors/perspectives? | Geographic/temporal diversity? | Sources truly independent (not circular)?
Flags: 60%+ from single org/author -> critical | All supporting same conclusion without counterpoint -> critical | Single geographic region -> medium | Clustered publication dates -> medium
Dimension 2: Evidence Quality
Check: every major claim cited | sources reputable (peer-reviewed, official, established) | primary over secondary | technical sources recent (5 years) | confidence matches evidence
Flags: uncited claim -> high | blog/forum for factual claim -> high | all secondary sources -> medium | sources >5 years for tech -> medium | high confidence with 1-2 sources -> high
Dimension 3: Replicability
Check: search strategy documented | source selection criteria explicit | methodology transparent | confidence levels with rationale
Flags: no methodology section -> high | vague methodology ("searched the web") -> medium | no confidence ratings -> medium
Dimension 4: Priority Validation
For research driving architectural/strategic decisions.
Q1: Is this the largest bottleneck? (timing/measurement data?) | Q2: Simpler alternatives considered and rejected with evidence? | Q3: Constraint prioritization correct? (>50% solution for <30% problem = flag) | Q4: Key decision data-justified?
Flags: secondary concern addressed while larger exists -> critical | no measurement data for performance -> high | alternatives not documented -> high | prioritization not explicit -> medium
Output template:
priority_validation:
q1_largest_bottleneck:
evidence: "{timing data or 'NOT PROVIDED'}"
assessment: "YES|NO|UNCLEAR"
q2_simple_alternatives:
assessment: "ADEQUATE|INADEQUATE|MISSING"
q3_constraint_prioritization:
minority_constraint_dominating: "YES|NO"
assessment: "CORRECT|INVERTED|NOT_ANALYZED"
q4_data_justified:
assessment: "JUSTIFIED|UNJUSTIFIED|NO_DATA"
verdict: "PASS|FAIL"
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 · 101 lines · 19 tokens per session scan A 9c8f02f5dfbc
nw-rr-critique-dimensions is a skill published in the GitHub repository nWave-ai/nWave (620 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 19 tokens to every session and 869 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.