nw-ab-critique-dimensi…
Review dimensions for validating agent quality - template compliance, safety, testing, and priority validation
Quality gates - 11 commit readiness gates, build/test protocol, validation checkpoints, and quality metrics
$ npx -y skills add nWave-ai/nWave --skill nw-quality-framework --agent claude-codeHow it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
/nw-quality-frameworkContext preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
Quality gates - 11 commit readiness gates, build/test protocol, validation checkpoints, and quality metrics
name: nw-quality-framework description: Quality gates - 11 commit readiness gates, build/test protocol, validation checkpoints, and quality metrics user-invocable: false disable-model-invocation: true
All pass before committing:
1. Active acceptance test passes (not skipped, not ignored) 2. All unit tests pass 3. All integration tests pass 4. All other enabled tests pass 5. Code formatting validation passes 6. Static analysis passes 7. Build validation passes (all projects) 8. No test skips in execution (ignores OK during progressive implementation) 9. Test count within behavior budget 10. No mocks inside hexagon 11. Business language in tests verified
Note: Reviewer approval (formerly Gate 12) and Testing Theater detection (formerly Gate 13) enforced at deliver-level Phase 4 (Adversarial Review via /nw-review), not per step.
**Definition**: Acceptance tests pass because test fixtures create the expected end-state directly, rather than exercising production code through the driving port. Tests verify the correct outcome from the WRONG source.
**Detection**: After GREEN phase, run `git diff --name-only`. If `files_to_modify` from the roadmap step have NO changes but tests flipped from RED to GREEN, this is Fixture Theater. The test fixtures are implementing the feature, not production code.
**Litmus test**: Delete the new production code (or revert production files to pre-GREEN state). If tests still pass, it's Fixture Theater.
**Prevention**: 1. Post-GREEN wiring check: every file in `files_to_modify` MUST appear in `git diff` 2. Acceptance test Given steps set up PRECONDITIONS, never the expected end-state 3. If `git diff --stat` shows only test files changed after GREEN, BLOCK the COMMIT
**Provenance**: 2026-05-02, RCA `docs/analysis/rca-systematic-duplication-despite-design.md`. Outcomes-registry catches duplicate *outcomes* (same input/output contract). It does NOT catch the failure mode where a NEW outcome is genuinely different but should have *extended* an existing component instead of being shipped as a parallel implementation in a new file.
This rule is **language-agnostic**: it applies to any source file regardless of host language. Examples in this section use multiple languages to underscore that.
**Rule**: before creating a NEW source file under a path that already contains ≥1 file in the same role/layer, the crafter MUST emit an Extension Justification block. The block has exactly four lines:
WHY-NEW-FILE: <relative-path-of-new-file> CLOSEST-EXISTING: <relative-path-of-the-most-similar-existing-file> EXTENSION-COST: <one sentence on what extending CLOSEST-EXISTING would require> PARALLEL-RATIONALE: <one sentence on why a separate file is justified instead>
**Trigger**: applies when ANY of these are true for the proposed new file:
**Not triggered** when:
**Enforcement**: the crafter's PREPARE phase MUST inventory existing files in `<target-path>/` before producing the first file-write. If the inventory is non-empty for a target path AND the new file is not a marker per the exclusion above, the Extension Justification block is mandatory before each new-file write. Reviewer agents flag missing blocks as a HIGH severity finding.
**Self-test for the rationale**: a valid PARALLEL-RATIONALE answers the question "what would break or what would become awkward if this lived inside CLOSEST-EXISTING?". Non-answers like "different concern", "cleaner separation", "single responsibility" are rejected — those are the phrases a parallel-creation bias produces without effort. Concrete answers cite at least one of: incompatible interface/signature, different lifecycle (init order, hot-reload, deployment unit), incompatible dependency set, divergent target/runtime (e.g. server-side vs client-side, native vs WASM), or DESIGN-table-recorded boundary that already adjudicated the split.
**Why this is a discipline rule, not a structural detector**: structural dete
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…