/nw-par-critique-dimensions
Platform design review critique dimensions and severity levels. Load when reviewing CI/CD pipelines, infrastructure, deployment strategies, observability, or security designs.
$ npx -y skills add nWave-ai/nWave --skill nw-par-critique-dimensions --agent claude-codeHow it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
- Fires itselfAuto-invocation. Claude auto-loads it when your prompt matches the work.Auto-invocation is when the right skill fires by itself at the right moment, driven by a FLOW.md router and a hook, instead of you invoking it by name. It is the difference between a skill being installed and a skill actually getting used.Read the full definition →
- You can call itInvoke it directly when you want it.
- Slash command
/nw-par-critique-dimensions
Context preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
Platform design review critique dimensions and severity levels. Load when reviewing CI/CD pipelines, infrastructure, deployment strategies, observability, or security designs.
SKILL.md
nw-par-critique-dimensions.SKILL.mdname: nw-par-critique-dimensions
description: Platform design review critique dimensions and severity levels. Load when reviewing CI/CD pipelines, infrastructure, deployment strategies, observability, or security designs.
user-invocable: false
disable-model-invocation: true
Platform Design Critique Dimensions
Dimension 1: CI/CD Pipeline Completeness
Questions: All stages defined (commit, acceptance, capacity, production)? Quality gates explicit with pass/fail criteria? Parallelization used? Failure recovery/retry documented? Commit stage < 10 min, acceptance < 30 min?
Blocker: Missing critical stage (no acceptance tests) | no quality gates | no security scanning. Critical: Pipeline > 30 min without parallelization | no failure notification | missing artifact versioning. High: No caching strategy | incomplete environment parity | missing matrix testing. Medium: Inconsistent naming | missing documentation for manual steps.
Dimension 2: Infrastructure as Code Quality
Questions: Infrastructure fully codified? Modules reusable and parameterized? State management secure (encrypted, locked)? Security best practices (least privilege, encryption)? Idempotent and reproducible?
Blocker: Secrets in version control | no state management | production credentials in code. Critical: No encryption at rest | overly permissive IAM | missing network security. High: Hardcoded values | missing resource tagging | no cost estimation. Medium: Inconsistent module structure | missing input variable validation.
Dimension 3: Deployment Strategy Risk
Questions: Strategy appropriate for risk profile? Rollback documented? Health checks and readiness probes defined? Gradual traffic shifting with automatic rollback? Database migrations backward compatible?
Blocker: No rollback strategy | no health checks | breaking changes without safeguards. Critical: Single-shot deployment for critical services | no canary/blue-green for high-traffic | missing pod disruption budgets. High: Rollback not tested | no gradual traffic shifting | no pre-deployment validation. Medium: Incomplete manual step documentation | no feature flags for risky features.
Dimension 4: Observability and SLO Alignment
Questions: SLOs defined with specific targets? All four golden signals monitored? Distributed tracing configured? Alerts SLO burn-rate based? Dashboards for investigation?
Blocker: No SLOs defined | no error rate monitoring | no alerting strategy. Critical: No latency monitoring (p50/p90/p99) | symptom-based alerts | no log-metric-trace correlation. High: Incomplete metric coverage | alert thresholds misaligned with SLOs | no runbook links. Medium: Unclear dashboard organization | missing error budget tracking.
Dimension 5: Pipeline and Infrastructure Security
Questions: SAST in commit stage? DAST before production? SCA configured? Secrets management using external vault? SBOM generated and signed?
Blocker: No security scanning | secrets in env vars or code | no container image scanning. Critical: Missing SAST in CI | no dependency vulnerability scanning | missing K8s network policies. High: No DAST before production | no SBOM generation | no image signing. Medium: Security scan results not blocking deployment | no license compliance.
Dimension 6: DORA Metrics Enablement
Questions: Design enables multiple deployments/day? Lead time < 1 hour achievable? Change failure rate tracking in place? Time to restore measurable with SLOs?
Critical: Manual steps preventing daily deployments | no automated testing for fast feedback | no deployment failure tracking. High: Pipeline > 1 hour for full deployment | no post-deployment validation | missing deployment frequency metrics.
Dimension 7: Priority and Constraint Validation
Questions: Design addresses largest bottleneck first? Simpler alternatives documented and rejected with evidence? Constraint prioritization correct? Complexity justified?
Critical: Design addresses secondary concern while larger exists | no measurement data | simple alternatives not documented. High: Constraint prioritization not explicit | over-engineered for stated requirements.
Read more
name: nw-par-critique-dimensions description: Platform design review critique dimensions and severity levels. Load when reviewing CI/CD pipelines, infrastructure, deployment strategies, observability, or security designs. user-invocable: false disable-model-invocation: true
Platform Design Critique Dimensions
Dimension 1: CI/CD Pipeline Completeness
Questions: All stages defined (commit, acceptance, capacity, production)? Quality gates explicit with pass/fail criteria? Parallelization used? Failure recovery/retry documented? Commit stage < 10 min, acceptance < 30 min?
Blocker: Missing critical stage (no acceptance tests) | no quality gates | no security scanning. Critical: Pipeline > 30 min without parallelization | no failure notification | missing artifact versioning. High: No caching strategy | incomplete environment parity | missing matrix testing. Medium: Inconsistent naming | missing documentation for manual steps.
Dimension 2: Infrastructure as Code Quality
Questions: Infrastructure fully codified? Modules reusable and parameterized? State management secure (encrypted, locked)? Security best practices (least privilege, encryption)? Idempotent and reproducible?
Blocker: Secrets in version control | no state management | production credentials in code. Critical: No encryption at rest | overly permissive IAM | missing network security. High: Hardcoded values | missing resource tagging | no cost estimation. Medium: Inconsistent module structure | missing input variable validation.
Dimension 3: Deployment Strategy Risk
Questions: Strategy appropriate for risk profile? Rollback documented? Health checks and readiness probes defined? Gradual traffic shifting with automatic rollback? Database migrations backward compatible?
Blocker: No rollback strategy | no health checks | breaking changes without safeguards. Critical: Single-shot deployment for critical services | no canary/blue-green for high-traffic | missing pod disruption budgets. High: Rollback not tested | no gradual traffic shifting | no pre-deployment validation. Medium: Incomplete manual step documentation | no feature flags for risky features.
Dimension 4: Observability and SLO Alignment
Questions: SLOs defined with specific targets? All four golden signals monitored? Distributed tracing configured? Alerts SLO burn-rate based? Dashboards for investigation?
Blocker: No SLOs defined | no error rate monitoring | no alerting strategy. Critical: No latency monitoring (p50/p90/p99) | symptom-based alerts | no log-metric-trace correlation. High: Incomplete metric coverage | alert thresholds misaligned with SLOs | no runbook links. Medium: Unclear dashboard organization | missing error budget tracking.
Dimension 5: Pipeline and Infrastructure Security
Questions: SAST in commit stage? DAST before production? SCA configured? Secrets management using external vault? SBOM generated and signed?
Blocker: No security scanning | secrets in env vars or code | no container image scanning. Critical: Missing SAST in CI | no dependency vulnerability scanning | missing K8s network policies. High: No DAST before production | no SBOM generation | no image signing. Medium: Security scan results not blocking deployment | no license compliance.
Dimension 6: DORA Metrics Enablement
Questions: Design enables multiple deployments/day? Lead time < 1 hour achievable? Change failure rate tracking in place? Time to restore measurable with SLOs?
Critical: Manual steps preventing daily deployments | no automated testing for fast feedback | no deployment failure tracking. High: Pipeline > 1 hour for full deployment | no post-deployment validation | missing deployment frequency metrics.
Dimension 7: Priority and Constraint Validation
Questions: Design addresses largest bottleneck first? Simpler alternatives documented and rejected with evidence? Constraint prioritization correct? Complexity justified?
Critical: Design addresses secondary concern while larger exists | no measurement data | simple alternatives not documented. High: Constraint prioritization not explicit | over-engineered for stated requirements.
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
Other skills on nwave.
- /nw-ab-critique-dimensions
Review dimensions for validating agent quality - template compliance, safety, testing, and priority validation
Open skill - /nw-abr-critique-dimensions
Review dimensions for validating agent quality - template compliance, safety, testing, and priority validation
Open skill - /nw-ad-critique-dimensions
Review dimensions for acceptance test quality - happy path bias, GWT compliance, business language purity, coverage completeness, walking skeleton user-centricity, priority validation, observable behavior assertions, traceability coverage, and walking skeleton boundary proof
Open skill - /nw-agent-creation-workflow
Detailed 5-phase workflow for creating agents - from requirements analysis through validation and iterative refinement
Open skill - /nw-agent-testing
5-layer testing approach for agent validation including adversarial testing, security validation, and prompt injection resistance
Open skill - /nw-architectural-styles-tradeoffs
Architectural style selection decision matrices, trade-off analysis, structural enforcement rules, and combination patterns. Load when choosing or evaluating architecture styles.
Open skill

