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 tomzx/agents --skill define-acceptancegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tomzx/agentsWrote 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/tomzx/agents/define-acceptance)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tomzx/agents/define-acceptance"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tomzx/agents/define-acceptance/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/tomzx/agents/define-acceptance"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tomzx/agents/define-acceptance.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 | $0.00036 | $0.00690 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00345 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00138 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00069 |
Grade A, and why
define-acceptance 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 5d 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 — 54 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Define Acceptance
This skill produces the acceptance contract: the testable, outcome-linked criteria that form the handoff from PDLC to SDLC. It is the seam. SDLC's create-requirements consumes this contract directly.
The contract captures what must be true for the initiative to be accepted (linked to SM-N success metrics and FR-N requirements), expressed so an engineer and a PM can both verify it. It deliberately excludes implementation.
Prerequisites
- Apply the shared PDLC conventions in
skills/pdlc/references/shared.md. prd.mdwith functional requirements and success criteria.
Steps
- Translate each functional requirement (
FR-N) into one or more acceptance criteria in Given/When/Then or measurable form. Each criterion must be verifiable by behavior or measurement, not by code inspection alone. - Bind each success metric (
SM-N) to an acceptance criterion: "accepted only ifSM-Nreaches target within the window." - Bind guardrails: list every
GM-Nthat must hold post-launch as a hard acceptance line ("must not regress below floor"). - Define the acceptance boundary: what is in scope (must pass) vs. explicitly out of scope (the non-goals from the PRD).
- Record the decomposition into SDLC features: one initiative commonly spawns one or more
FEAT-N. Listspawns_featuresin the initiative frontmatter. - Note which criteria need runtime/analytics proof (feed
spec-analytics) vs. functional proof (feed SDLC tests). - Write
acceptance-contract.mdto the initiative directory.
Output Format
Use the template at skills/pdlc/templates/initiatives/acceptance-contract.md. Each criterion carries an AC-N id and links to its FR-N / SM-N / GM-N.
Outcome
If $OUTCOME_YAML is set, emit verdict: ready-for-sdlc.
The Handoff
After the Define gate proceed:
- Point the user to
/sdlc requirementswith this contract as input. PDLC does not run SDLC skills itself. - SDLC produces
requirements.md→specification.md→ plan → code → PR, and the acceptance criteria become SDLC test cases (TC-N). - PDLC resumes at
plan-launchonce the change is shipped.
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 54 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A 649ef764f8bc
define-acceptance is a skill published in the GitHub repository tomzx/agents (6 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 690 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
engram-testing-coverage
TDD and coverage standards for Engram. Trigger: When implementing behavior changes in any package.
iterative-development
TDD iteration loops using Claude Code Stop hooks - runs tests after each response, feeds failures back automatically.
python
Python development with ruff, mypy, pytest - TDD and type safety.
nw-fp-clojure
Clojure language-specific patterns, data-first modeling, REPL-driven development, and spec.
strict-tdd
Strict RED->GREEN->REFACTOR test-driven development with enforcement. Never write production code before a failing test. Atomic commits per TDD cycle.
mobiai-mobile-tdd
You MUST use this before writing any implementation code for a mobile feature, bug fix, refactor, or behavior change. Tests come before implementation — no exceptions.