nw-ab-critique-dimensi…
Review dimensions for validating agent quality - template compliance, safety, testing, and priority validation
Orchestrates the full DELIVER wave end-to-end (roadmap > execute-all > finalize). Use when all prior waves are complete and the feature is ready for implementation.
$ npx -y skills add nWave-ai/nWave --skill nw-deliver --agent claude-codeHow it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
/nw-deliverContext preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
Orchestrates the full DELIVER wave end-to-end (roadmap > execute-all > finalize). Use when all prior waves are complete and the feature is ready for implementation.
name: nw-deliver description: "Orchestrates the full DELIVER wave end-to-end (roadmap > execute-all > finalize). Use when all prior waves are complete and the feature is ready for implementation." user-invocable: true argument-hint: '[feature-description] - Example: "Implement user authentication with JWT"'
**Wave**: DELIVER (wave 6 of 6)|**Agent**: Main Instance (orchestrator)|**Command**: `/nw-deliver "{feature-description}"`
**Code examples in this skill use Python syntax for illustration only.** They are NOT prescriptive about target language. nWave is language-agnostic per the "genericity and agnosticism" mandate (2026-05-24).
**Before crafting**, detect the target project's language from manifest files: `package.json` → TypeScript/JS; `Cargo.toml` → Rust; `go.mod` → Go; `pyproject.toml`/`setup.py`/`Pipfile` → Python; `pom.xml`/`build.gradle` → Java/Kotlin; `*.csproj`/`*.fsproj` → C#/F#; `Gemfile` → Ruby; `Package.swift` → Swift.
**When the target language is NOT Python**: adapt every code example to target conventions (imports, type system, test-framework idioms, file extensions, directory layout). Project conventions ALWAYS WIN over examples below.
**Empirical anchor**: skill examples being Python-only caused LLM to emit Python code in greenfield TS project. Fix per F-SKILL-EXAMPLES-LANGUAGE-LEAK. Connects [[feedback_language_adapter_plugin_architecture_2026_05_24]].
Orchestrates complete DELIVER wave: feature description → production-ready code with mandatory quality gates. You (main Claude instance) coordinate by delegating to specialized agents via Task tool. Final wave (DISCOVER > DISCUSS > SPIKE > DESIGN > DEVOPS > DISTILL > DELIVER).
Sub-agents cannot use Skill tool or `/nw-*` commands. You MUST:
Provenance: feature `lean-wave-documentation` — D2 (schema-typed sections), D10 (one-line expansion descriptions). Tier-1 [REF] sections (always emitted) + Tier-2 EXPANSION CATALOG items (lazy, on-demand) are the two output bands. Implementation details live in code; the wave-delta sections are pointers + structured summaries. Full contract: `nWave/skills/nw-density-resolution-contract/SKILL.md`.
Under `## Wave: DELIVER / [REF] <Section>` headings:
Rendered under `## Wave: DELIVER / [WHY|HOW] <Section>` only when requested via `--expand <id>` (DDD-2), the broad wave-end menu (`expansion_prompt = "ask"`), a declared trigger under `expansion_prompt = "ask-intelligent"`, `mode = "full"` auto-expansion, or an ad-hoc user request mid-session.
| Expansion ID | Tier label | One-line description | |---|---|---| | `refactoring-journal` | [HOW] | L1-L6 refactoring log with rationale per micro-transformation | | `retrospective-notes` | [WHY] | 5 Whys analysis on issues encountered, lessons learned, what to repeat/avoid | | `performance-measurements` | [WHY] | Benchmarks, profiling output, latency/memory deltas vs baseline | | `alternative-implementations-rejected` | [WHY] | Implementation approaches tried and rejected with one-paragraph reason each | | `mutation-testing-report` | [HOW] | Mutmut/Pitest output: kill rate, surviving mutants, mitigation actions | | `architecture-decision-deviations` | [WHY] | Where DELIVER deviated from DESIGN and the back-propagation logged in upstream-issues.md | | `coverage-deltas` | [HOW] | Per-module coverage delta with rationale for any drops | | `expansion-catalog-rationale` | [WHY] | Why this set of expansions, why these defaults, why D10 enforces one-line descriptions |
Call `resolve_density(global_config)` from `scripts/shared/density_config.py` after reading `~/.nwave/global-config.json` (missing/malformed = empty dict). Returns `mode` (`"lean"` | `"full"`) + `expansion_prompt` (`"ask"` | `"ask-intelligent"` | `"always-skip"` | `"always-expand"` | `"smart"`) per the D12 cascade (resolver-internal, DDD-5 — do NOT replicate locally). Branch on `density.mode` for what to emit; branch on `density.expansion_prompt` at wave end for menu behaviour. DELIVER declares no `ask-intelligent` triggers: emit no menu and the shared-contract no-trigger skip event; do not invent triggers. Full cascade detail, branch semantics, ad-hoc override workflow: `nWave/skills/nw-density-resolution-contract/SKILL.md`.
Every expansion choice emits a `DocumentationDensityEvent` (dataclass at `src/des/domain/telemetry/documentation_density_event.py`) via `event.to_audit_event()` → `JsonlAuditLogWriter().log_event(...)`. Schema fields per D4: `feature_id`, `wave`, `expansion_id`, `choice`, `timestamp`. For this wave the schema declares `"wave": "DELIVER"`. Use helper `scripts/shared/telemetry.py:write_density_event(...)` — do NOT write JSONL directly.
Wave-specific signal: a DELIVER wave recording `choice = "expand"` for `retrospective-notes` indicates the team needed deeper learning capture; over time the data drives whether retrospective notes should be promote
AI agents that guide you from idea to working code, with human judgment at every gate. nWave runs inside Claude Code. It breaks feature delivery into seven waves (discover, diverge, discuss, design, devops, distill, deliver).
Repo: nWave-ai/nWave
Review dimensions for validating agent quality - template compliance, safety, testing, and priority validation
Review dimensions for validating agent quality - template compliance, safety, testing, and priority validation
Review dimensions for acceptance test quality - happy path bias, GWT compliance, business language purity, coverage completeness, walking skeleton…
Detailed 5-phase workflow for creating agents - from requirements analysis through validation and iterative refinement
5-layer testing approach for agent validation including adversarial testing, security validation, and prompt injection resistance
Architectural style selection decision matrices, trade-off analysis, structural enforcement rules, and combination patterns. Load when choosing or evaluating…