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-sar-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-sar-critique-dimensions)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-sar-critique-dimensions"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-sar-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-sar-critique-dimensions"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-sar-critique-dimensions.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>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 | $0.01024 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00410 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00205 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00102 |
Grade A, and why
nw-sar-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.
This is a copy
91% identical to nw-sa-critique-dimensions — 5 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 115 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Architecture Quality Critique Dimensions
Dimension 1: Architectural Bias Detection
Technology Preference Bias
Pattern: tech chosen by preference, not requirements. Detection: ADR lacks comparison matrix, choice not mapped to requirements, justified only as "best practice." Severity: HIGH.
Resume-Driven Development
Pattern: complex/trendy tech without requirement justification. Examples: microservices for 3-person team, Kafka for 100 req/day, service mesh without complexity. Detection: complexity exceeds team size/requirements, tech adds resume value not solves problem. Severity: CRITICAL.
Latest Technology Bias
Pattern: unproven tech (<6 months, small community) for production. Detection: check maturity, community, LTS, fallback plan. Severity: HIGH.
Dimension 2: ADR Quality Validation
Missing Context
ADR lacks business problem, technical constraints, or quality attribute requirements. Future maintainers cannot validate. Severity: HIGH.
Missing Alternatives Analysis
No alternatives (min 2 required). Each must be evaluated against requirements with rejection rationale. Severity: HIGH.
Missing Consequences
Omits positive/negative consequences and trade-offs. Quality attribute impact not analyzed. Severity: MEDIUM.
Dimension 3: Completeness Validation
Missing Quality Attributes
Architecture doesn't address required attributes. Verify: performance (latency, throughput) | scalability | security (auth, data protection) | maintainability (modularity, testability) | reliability (fault tolerance, recovery) | observability (logging, monitoring, alerting). Severity: CRITICAL.
Missing Performance Architecture
Performance requirements exist but no optimization strategy (caching, indexing, rate limiting, CDN). Severity: CRITICAL.
Dimension 4: Implementation Feasibility
Team Capability Mismatch
Requires expertise team lacks. Verify learning curve reasonable, training plan exists. Severity: HIGH.
Budget Constraints
Infrastructure costs exceed budget. Verify cost estimate exists and aligns. Severity: HIGH.
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 · 115 lines · 25 tokens per session scan A cf6860e5dfbe
nw-sar-critique-dimensions 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 1,024 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 91% identical to nw-sa-critique-dimensions, differing in 5 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
orchestrated-execution
Execute work units through the rigorous 4-phase Metaswarm cycle (Implement -> Validate -> Adversarial Review -> Commit) with independent quality gate enforcement.
Pair Programming
AI-assisted pair programming with multiple modes (driver$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…
team-implement
Use for executing implementation plans only on explicit request. Never infer from a ready plan. Implements and verifies slices.
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.
ai-agents-validation-and-qa
What counts as evidence in ai-agents and how to produce it. Covers the TESTING-RIGOR pos+neg+edge bar, test layout and collection reality, coverage proof commands, runtime-contract tests with negative controls, and ADR-034 QA skip semantics at session end. Use when you say what counts as evidence, how do I test this…
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…