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 ZeusYue/acceptance-driven-development-skill --skill acceptance-driven-developmentgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ZeusYue/acceptance-driven-development-skillWrote 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/zeusyue/acceptance-driven-development-skill/acceptance-driven-development)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/zeusyue/acceptance-driven-development-skill/acceptance-driven-development"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zeusyue/acceptance-driven-development-skill/acceptance-driven-development/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/zeusyue/acceptance-driven-development-skill/acceptance-driven-development"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zeusyue/acceptance-driven-development-skill/acceptance-driven-development.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 | $0.00031 | $0.01245 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00498 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00249 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00125 |
Grade A, and why
acceptance-driven-development 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 — 59 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Acceptance-Driven Development
Drive the current authorized work to observable, verified outcomes. Match planning, review, and record keeping to the work. Implementation progress is not acceptance evidence.
Scope and authorization
Apply automatically to project development, including fixes and configuration changes. For discussion, audits, or design requests, provide that requested deliverable; mentioning ADD does not authorize implementation. Explanations and delivery-only operations do not start a development workflow.
A clear request authorizes its stated outcome and necessary ordinary implementation choices. Derive acceptance criteria from that request without asking the user to approve the transcription. Ask when missing information changes a material product decision, expands scope, or authorizes consequences not already covered. Explain the concrete decision and recommendation; continue independent authorized work while it is pending. Honor the user's chosen discussion style and existing authorization across turns.
Establish the current target
Use the request, relevant project instructions, existing acceptance records, and actual code to identify:
- the outcome and observable passing conditions;
- the constraints and existing behavior this change must preserve;
- the checks that can demonstrate those conditions.
Read the relevant context before editing, including current changes and any applicable handoff. Resolve conflicting requirements without presenting inferred preferences as agreed scope. A request to fix one issue does not authorize the rest of the backlog.
For new and resumed work, locate the acceptance source through the request, project instructions, and handoff paths, URLs, issue references, or criterion IDs. When needed, search bounded project locations for acceptance/specification files, skipping dependencies and generated output. Reuse a record only when its authority and scope are clear. A location already declared by the user or project instructions remains valid; do not ask again merely because the file has not been created. If neither an authoritative record nor a declared location can be found, ask the user to specify the acceptance path or URL before creating a durable record. Never silently create one or declare a default canonical location. Resolve conflicting candidates before writing to them; independent work and conversational drafts can continue.
What ships with it
5 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.
- 1mo ago Changed · -197 lines · +1 tokens per session 55145d806aa3
- 1mo ago Changed · +6 lines 8086eee753ee
- 1mo ago Changed · +3 lines · -35 tokens per session 7c34d6ebdb9b
- 1mo ago First seen · 247 lines · 65 tokens per session scan A ebe5fe9dc6db
acceptance-driven-development is a skill published in the GitHub repository ZeusYue/acceptance-driven-development-skill (6 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 31 tokens to every session and 1,245 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
adk-go-self-review
Review an ADK Go change the way a maintainer will — a fresh-context pass over the whole diff, five lenses (correctness and tests, scope, simplicity, style, adk-python parity), and the mutation check that proves your tests pin the change. Use before opening a PR, before any later push that changes code, and when asked…
adversarial-reviewer
Stress-test a code change for concrete correctness defects, unsafe assumptions, and failure modes. Use when the user explicitly asks for an adversarial review, a deep bug hunt, or to tear a change apart, or to check your own change before submitting it. Do not use for ordinary review, style feedback, or general…
go-testing
Trigger: Go tests, go test coverage, Bubbletea teatest, golden files. Apply focused Go testing patterns.
semgrep-rule-variant-creator
Creates language variants of existing Semgrep rules. Use when porting a Semgrep rule to specified target languages. Takes an existing rule and target languages as input, produces independent rule+test directories for each language.
brooks-sweep
Full-sweep mode: runs a unified analysis across all quality dimensions — code decay, architecture, tech debt, and test quality — then applies fixes directly to the codebase. Safe changes are auto-applied; risky changes are confirmed before execution. Drawing on twelve classic engineering books. Triggers when: user…
plugin-review
Review plugin quality with tiered checks and dependency scoping. Use for PR and pre-release audits.