Waza is a collection of installed skills that turn familiar engineering practices into repeatable playbooks for coding agents. It helps agents plan work, design interfaces, review changes, debug problems, edit prose, research unfamiliar subjects, read URLs or PDFs, and check their own health. The catalogue entries are Waza’s skills and supporting agents or instructions.
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 tw93/Waza --skill checkgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tw93/WazaWrote 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/tw93/waza/check)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tw93/waza/check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tw93/waza/check/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/tw93/waza/check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tw93/waza/check.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- Socket pass
- Snyk warn
- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 2 findings, up to high
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- high Tool Misuse · line 41 Tool parameters are crafted to achieve unintended or unsafe behavior. Parameter abuse can bypass intended safety checks (e.g. shell=True, --force, dangerous glob patterns).Fix: Validate all tool parameters against an allowlist. Reject dangerous parameter values (shell=True, --force, -rf /) and use safe defaults.
- medium Excessive Agency · line 262 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00041 | $0.05494 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.02198 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.01099 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00549 |
Grade A, and why
check 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 3d 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 — 229 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Check: Review Before You Ship
Prefix your first line with 🥷 inline, not as its own paragraph.
Note:
/reviewis a built-in Anthropic plugin command for PR review. Waza uses/check(or the aliascode-review) instead. Do not re-trigger/reviewfrom within this skill.
Read the diff and find the problems. Review, audit, triage, and readiness requests are report-only; apply fixes only under explicit repair authorization still in force for the same task. Done means the requested review surface is covered and every verification claim comes from this session.
Outcome Contract
- Outcome: a review, release decision, or maintainer action grounded in the current diff, project context, and live evidence.
- Done when: findings, fixes, shipped state, or blockers are stated with the commands, artifacts, or remote state that prove them.
- Evidence: worktree status, diff, public project docs, manifests, CI, package contents, release or registry state, and current command output.
- Output: concise findings first, then verification and shipped-state summary when applicable. Multi-step or ship-action runs, and any request with several items or screenshots, close with a numbered completion ledger (done / not applicable / remaining), never a narrative that leaves the user asking "is everything done".
- Authorization: read-only intent may inspect the worktree and remote state but may not edit files, apply autofixes, commit, push, publish, comment, close, merge, or change branches. Each write or public action needs authorization from the current request, or from an authorization still in force for the same unfinished task: one that named this action and goal and has not been withdrawn. A later turn that asks for progress or says "continue" does not revoke it and does not have to repeat it. A new action, a wider scope, a changed goal, or a risk the original authorization did not cover needs its own. Approval of a draft is not approval to commit, push, publish, or delete.
What ships with it
14 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
- agents/reviewer-architecture.md 2.3 KB
- agents/reviewer-security.md 2.6 KB
- references/durable-context.md 2.0 KB
- references/mode-audit.md 2.9 KB
- references/mode-ship.md 8.4 KB
- references/mode-triage.md 4.8 KB
- references/persona-catalog.md 3.4 KB
- references/project-context.md 8.5 KB
- references/public-reply.md 1.7 KB
- references/release-surfaces.md 3.3 KB
- references/review-patterns.md 7.5 KB
- scripts/audit_signals.py 25 KB runs code
- scripts/release_gate.py 14 KB runs code
- scripts/run-tests.sh 639 B runs code
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.
- 3d ago Changed · -21 lines dbf7cc3adfab
- 8d ago Changed 24f6da0f2507
- 11d ago Changed · -4 lines 1939fba3ea34
- 12d ago Changed 3ba7e598297c
- 23d ago Changed · -49 lines 74839d6cb552
- 26d ago Changed 1a392e2919c9
- 29d ago Changed 9e6d099aa27e
- 1mo ago Changed · -22 tokens per session 95898a6a830f
- 1mo ago Changed 0bc73ae241bc
- 1mo ago First seen · 303 lines · 63 tokens per session scan A d4022d102206
check is a skill published in the GitHub repository tw93/Waza (7,325 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 5,494 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
requesting-code-review
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements.
finishing-with-review
Use when implementation is complete and you're ready to finish a branch — mandatory code review gate before reflection and merge. Replaces direct use of superpowers:finishing-a-development-branch.
doubt-driven-development
Subjects every non-trivial decision to a fresh-context adversarial review before it stands. Use when you want every assumption cross-examined before proceeding, when stress-testing a plan for hidden failure modes, when correctness matters more than speed, when working in unfamiliar code, when stakes are high…
antfu-create-pr
Create a reviewable GitHub pull request from the current branch with a Conventional Commits title, a concise evidence-based body, and before/after screenshots for UI changes. Use when asked to open, create, publish, or prepare a PR.
reproduce-and-fix-issues
Reproduce triaged Slack bugs through a configured app-control adapter, verify existing fixes, and open a bounded draft pull request only after before-and-after proof. Use only from the configured Benny repro automation.
factory-review-prs
Experimental workflow for reviewing configured repositories' pull requests. Use for manual or scheduled PR triage, approval, or merge decisions.