/nw-par-review-criteria
Quality dimensions and review checklist for devop reviews
$ npx -y skills add nWave-ai/nWave --skill nw-par-review-criteria --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-review-criteria
Context preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
Quality dimensions and review checklist for devop reviews
SKILL.md
nw-par-review-criteria.SKILL.mdname: nw-par-review-criteria
description: Quality dimensions and review checklist for devop reviews
user-invocable: false
disable-model-invocation: true
DevOp Reviewer: Review Criteria
Critique Dimension 1: Incomplete Phase Handoffs
**Pattern**: Phase handoffs missing required artifacts or approvals.
**Required per Phase**:
- DISCUSS: Requirements document + peer review approval
- DESIGN: Architecture document + ADRs + peer review approval
- DISTILL: Acceptance tests + peer review approval
- DELIVER: Production code + tests (100% passing) + peer review approval
**Severity**: critical. Verify all artifacts present and peer-reviewed before phase transition.
---
Critique Dimension 2: Deployment Readiness Gaps
**Pattern**: Feature marked "ready" but missing production prerequisites.
**Required**: All tests passing (100%) | Production configuration complete | Monitoring/alerting configured | Runbook/operational docs created | Rollback plan documented.
**Severity**: critical. Complete missing prerequisite before marking deployment-ready.
---
Critique Dimension 3: Traceability Violations
**Pattern**: Cannot trace production code back to requirements.
**Required**: User stories map to acceptance tests | Acceptance tests map to production code | Code changes traceable to commits | All AC verified in production.
**Severity**: high. Establish traceability chain: user-story -> acceptance-tests -> code-commits.
---
Critique Dimension 4: Priority Validation
**Purpose**: Validate roadmap addresses largest bottleneck first, not secondary concern.
Questions
**Q1: Is this the largest bottleneck?** Does timing data show primary problem? Larger problem being ignored? Assessment: YES / NO / UNCLEAR.
**Q2: Were simpler alternatives considered?** Roadmap includes rejected alternatives? Rejection reasons evidence-based? Simpler solution achieves 80% benefit? Assessment: ADEQUATE / INADEQUATE / MISSING.
**Q3: Is constraint prioritization correct?** Constraints quantified by impact? Architecture addresses constraint-free opportunities first? Minority constraint dominating? (flag if >50% of solution for <30% of problem). Assessment: CORRECT / INVERTED / NOT_ANALYZED.
**Q4: Is architecture data-justified?** Key architectural decision supported by quantitative data? Different data leads to different architecture? Assessment: JUSTIFIED / UNJUSTIFIED / NO_DATA.
Failure Conditions
- FAIL if Q1 = NO (wrong problem being addressed)
- FAIL if Q2 = MISSING (no alternatives considered)
- FAIL if Q3 = INVERTED (minority constraint dominating)
- FAIL if Q4 = NO_DATA and this is performance optimization
---
Critique Dimension 5: Functional Integration
**Purpose**: Verify feature wired into system entry point -- prevents Testing Theatre. A feature with 100% test coverage but 0% wiring tests is not complete.
**Validation Criteria**: 1. **Wiring test exists**: at least one acceptance test invokes feature through driving port 2. **Component integrated**: implemented component called from entry point module 3. **Boundary correct**: acceptance tests do not import internal components directly
**Gate failure response**: Block finalization | report specific integration gap with evidence | require integration step before completion.
---
Quality Gate Checklist
Technical Completion
- [ ] All acceptance tests passing with stakeholder validation
- [ ] Unit test coverage meeting project standards (>=80%)
- [ ] Integration test validation of cross-component functionality
- [ ] Code review completed with approval
- [ ] Static analysis and security scan passed
- [ ] Performance tested under realistic load
Architecture Compliance
- [ ] Implementation aligns with architectural design
- [ ] Component boundaries and interfaces respected
- [ ] Security architecture implemented correctly
Production Readiness
- [ ] Monitoring and alerting configured
- [ ] Logging and debugging capability validated
- [ ] Rollback procedure documented and tested
- [ ] Operational runbook complete
- [ ] Support team trained / knowledge transferred
Business Completion
- [ ] All user stories completed with acceptance criteria met
- [ ] Business rules implemented and validated
- [ ] Stakeholder acceptance obtained
Read more
name: nw-par-review-criteria description: Quality dimensions and review checklist for devop reviews user-invocable: false disable-model-invocation: true
DevOp Reviewer: Review Criteria
Critique Dimension 1: Incomplete Phase Handoffs
**Pattern**: Phase handoffs missing required artifacts or approvals.
**Required per Phase**:
- DISCUSS: Requirements document + peer review approval
- DESIGN: Architecture document + ADRs + peer review approval
- DISTILL: Acceptance tests + peer review approval
- DELIVER: Production code + tests (100% passing) + peer review approval
**Severity**: critical. Verify all artifacts present and peer-reviewed before phase transition.
---
Critique Dimension 2: Deployment Readiness Gaps
**Pattern**: Feature marked "ready" but missing production prerequisites.
**Required**: All tests passing (100%) | Production configuration complete | Monitoring/alerting configured | Runbook/operational docs created | Rollback plan documented.
**Severity**: critical. Complete missing prerequisite before marking deployment-ready.
---
Critique Dimension 3: Traceability Violations
**Pattern**: Cannot trace production code back to requirements.
**Required**: User stories map to acceptance tests | Acceptance tests map to production code | Code changes traceable to commits | All AC verified in production.
**Severity**: high. Establish traceability chain: user-story -> acceptance-tests -> code-commits.
---
Critique Dimension 4: Priority Validation
**Purpose**: Validate roadmap addresses largest bottleneck first, not secondary concern.
Questions
**Q1: Is this the largest bottleneck?** Does timing data show primary problem? Larger problem being ignored? Assessment: YES / NO / UNCLEAR.
**Q2: Were simpler alternatives considered?** Roadmap includes rejected alternatives? Rejection reasons evidence-based? Simpler solution achieves 80% benefit? Assessment: ADEQUATE / INADEQUATE / MISSING.
**Q3: Is constraint prioritization correct?** Constraints quantified by impact? Architecture addresses constraint-free opportunities first? Minority constraint dominating? (flag if >50% of solution for <30% of problem). Assessment: CORRECT / INVERTED / NOT_ANALYZED.
**Q4: Is architecture data-justified?** Key architectural decision supported by quantitative data? Different data leads to different architecture? Assessment: JUSTIFIED / UNJUSTIFIED / NO_DATA.
Failure Conditions
- FAIL if Q1 = NO (wrong problem being addressed)
- FAIL if Q2 = MISSING (no alternatives considered)
- FAIL if Q3 = INVERTED (minority constraint dominating)
- FAIL if Q4 = NO_DATA and this is performance optimization
---
Critique Dimension 5: Functional Integration
**Purpose**: Verify feature wired into system entry point -- prevents Testing Theatre. A feature with 100% test coverage but 0% wiring tests is not complete.
**Validation Criteria**: 1. **Wiring test exists**: at least one acceptance test invokes feature through driving port 2. **Component integrated**: implemented component called from entry point module 3. **Boundary correct**: acceptance tests do not import internal components directly
**Gate failure response**: Block finalization | report specific integration gap with evidence | require integration step before completion.
---
Quality Gate Checklist
Technical Completion
- [ ] All acceptance tests passing with stakeholder validation
- [ ] Unit test coverage meeting project standards (>=80%)
- [ ] Integration test validation of cross-component functionality
- [ ] Code review completed with approval
- [ ] Static analysis and security scan passed
- [ ] Performance tested under realistic load
Architecture Compliance
- [ ] Implementation aligns with architectural design
- [ ] Component boundaries and interfaces respected
- [ ] Security architecture implemented correctly
Production Readiness
- [ ] Monitoring and alerting configured
- [ ] Logging and debugging capability validated
- [ ] Rollback procedure documented and tested
- [ ] Operational runbook complete
- [ ] Support team trained / knowledge transferred
Business Completion
- [ ] All user stories completed with acceptance criteria met
- [ ] Business rules implemented and validated
- [ ] Stakeholder acceptance obtained
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

