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 WenyuChiou/agent-collab-skills --skill agent-acceptance-gategit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/WenyuChiou/agent-collab-skillsWrote 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/wenyuchiou/agent-collab-skills/agent-acceptance-gate)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/wenyuchiou/agent-collab-skills/agent-acceptance-gate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/wenyuchiou/agent-collab-skills/agent-acceptance-gate/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/wenyuchiou/agent-collab-skills/agent-acceptance-gate"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/wenyuchiou/agent-collab-skills/agent-acceptance-gate.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 | $0.00031 | $0.00920 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00460 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00184 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00092 |
Grade A, and why
agent-acceptance-gate 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 6d 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 — 107 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
agent-acceptance-gate
Run the final read-only verification step for a multi-agent round. The gate checks declared criteria and produces acceptance evidence. It never merges, commits, retries, or silently converts a decline, cancellation, timeout, or failure into success.
Inputs
- current provider-neutral plan and success criteria;
- validated
TaskCheckpointand latestPolicyDecision; - task results, evidence references, and raw-log paths;
- reconciliation report;
- repository diff and project-specific verification commands;
- prior human decision records, if any.
Historical provider fields may be read for migration only. Current checks use
task IDs and roles (primary-agent, delegated-executor, reviewer, and
synthesizer).
Mandatory preset routing
Run the matching preset when a staged diff:
- touches multiple locale variants of the same document stem;
- adds entries to a catalog; or
- changes a model-and-benchmark claim.
The bundled preset names are multi-locale-mirror-sync,
catalog-entry-add, and fact-check-frontier-models.
Presets encode additional failure-mode checks; they do not replace independent review or factual source verification. If a preset cannot run, report a blocker or explicit degraded state. Never claim PASS.
Workflow
- Validate the plan, checkpoint, and policy. Unreadable configured policy is a fail-closed blocker.
- Inventory all tasks and required artifacts. Missing,
null, declined, cancelled, timeout, degraded, and failed states remain distinct. - Verify each declared success criterion with a deterministic command, artifact check, or explicit manual-check requirement. Never invent missing criteria.
- Compare changed files with declared task scopes and record unexplained drift as FAIL.
- Check structured statuses, claimed tests, evidence references, reconciliation blockers, and unresolved high-severity risks.
- Run triggered presets and applicable project invariants. For external facts, cite authoritative sources and mark whether evidence was locally verified.
- Evaluate canonical policy after the gate cycle. Respect v2 action/slice/goal scope and eligible automatic slice continuation; v1 behavior is unchanged.
- Write a new immutable acceptance evidence record. Do not overwrite a prior run or human decision.
- Report acceptance to the primary-agent and user. The host checks existing authorization for delivery; do not demand a fresh approval solely because review, session, or slice changed. A genuinely new human gate still needs a separate recorded decision bound to the specific affected action.
What ships with it
4 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.
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.
- 6d ago Changed · +2 lines · -2 tokens per session f5d41044d4e0
- 7d ago Changed · -380 lines · -5 tokens per session 77e024d99b60
- 11d ago First seen · 485 lines · 38 tokens per session scan A d50dcb1eb061
agent-acceptance-gate is a skill published in the GitHub repository WenyuChiou/agent-collab-skills (26 stars, last pushed 6d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 920 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
critical-code-reviewer
Rigorously review code or pull requests for correctness, security, accessibility, maintainability, tests, and edge cases. Use when users request a critical code review, want a guided walkthrough of findings, need implementer-facing feedback, or want to prepare, create, or submit a GitHub pull request review.
review-work
Post-implementation gate review: run manual QA on the real surface yourself, then launch ONE gate reviewer (never a panel) to audit goal, constraints, code quality, security, missed context, and QA evidence. Use before a PR handoff or when the user explicitly asks to review completed work.
one-way-door
Flags irreversible decisions before commit. Use for data models, infra, auth boundaries, API contracts, event schemas, CI/CD.
map-codebase
Deep architecture report that fans out parallel inspections across different aspects of the codebase (structure, tech stack, APIs, patterns, data flow, dependencies, testing) and synthesizes findings into a comprehensive document at .turbo/codebase-map.md and .turbo/codebase-map.html. Use when the user asks to "map…
reply-to-pr-threads
Draft, confirm, and post replies to GitHub PR review threads. Handles per-category reply formatting, re-fetches thread resolution state so auto-resolved threads are skipped, and posts via GraphQL. Use when the user asks to "reply to PR threads", "post PR thread replies", or "draft PR reply messages".
code-review-web
Review web application code for bugs, security issues, performance problems, and stack-specific anti-patterns. Use this skill whenever the user wants to review code, debug a production issue, investigate a build failure, audit security, or check a PR before merging. Triggers on code review, review my code, debug…