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-source-verificationgit 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-source-verification)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-source-verification"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-source-verification/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-source-verification"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nwave-ai/nwave/nw-source-verification.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 | $0.00573 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00229 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00115 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00057 |
Grade A, and why
nw-source-verification 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 — 58 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Source Verification
Source Reputation Tiers
Validate every source against the trusted source domains provided via prompt context.
| Tier | Score | Examples | Verification |
|---|---|---|---|
| High | 1.0 | Academic (.edu, arxiv.org, ieee.org), Official (.gov, w3.org, ietf.org), Tech docs (developer.mozilla.org), OSS foundations (apache.org, cncf.io) | Standard citation |
| Medium-High | 0.8 | Industry leaders (martinfowler.com, stackoverflow.com, infoq.com) | Cross-ref with 1+ high-tier |
| Medium | 0.6 | Community (medium.com verified experts, dev.to, hashnode.com) | Author verification + 3-source cross-ref |
| Excluded | 0.0 | Unverified blogs (*.blogspot.com, wordpress.com), quora.com, pastebin.com | Reject, log warning, find alternative |
Cross-Referencing Methodology
- Identify the specific assertion to verify
- Find 2+ independent sources not citing each other (avoid circular refs)
- Verify independence: different authors, publishers, organizations
- Compare: agree on substance (minor wording differences OK)
- Document: verified / partially verified / unverified per finding
Circular Reference Detection
- Source B cites Source A = one source, not two
- Multiple sources referencing single study = cite the original
- Prefer primary over secondary sources
Bias Detection Checklist
Evaluate before citing:
- Commercial interest: selling related product/service?
- Sponsorship: sponsored/funded content?
- Conflict of interest: author benefits from conclusion?
- Geographic/cultural bias: limited to single region?
- Temporal bias: publication dates skewed to specific era?
- Cherry-picking: contradictory evidence acknowledged?
- Logical fallacies: correlation as causation, authority without evidence
When bias detected: note in Source Analysis, reduce confidence.
Citation Format
[1] {Author/Organization}. "{Title}". {Publication/Website}. {Date}. {Full URL}. Accessed {YYYY-MM-DD}.
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 · 58 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A 7af6655e3f3a
nw-source-verification is a skill published in the GitHub repository nWave-ai/nWave (620 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 573 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.