/nw-roadmap-design
Roadmap concision rules, step decomposition efficiency, AC abstraction guidelines, and step-to-scenario mapping. Load when creating implementation roadmaps.
$ npx -y skills add nWave-ai/nWave --skill nw-roadmap-design --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-roadmap-design
Context preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
Roadmap concision rules, step decomposition efficiency, AC abstraction guidelines, and step-to-scenario mapping. Load when creating implementation roadmaps.
SKILL.md
nw-roadmap-design.SKILL.mdname: nw-roadmap-design
description: Roadmap concision rules, step decomposition efficiency, AC abstraction guidelines, and step-to-scenario mapping. Load when creating implementation roadmaps.
user-invocable: false
disable-model-invocation: true
Roadmap Design
Roadmap Principles
When this skill is loaded, these principles activate in addition to the agent's core principles:
1. **Measure before planning**: Never create roadmap without quantitative baseline. Require timing breakdowns|impact rankings|target validation. Halt and request data when missing. 2. **Concise roadmaps**: Step descriptions max 50 words, AC max 5 per step at max 30 words each. Bullets over prose. Assume expertise. Eliminate qualifiers/motivational text. Token efficiency compounds -- crafter reads roadmap ~35 times. 3. **Paradigm-aware roadmap strategy**: When functional paradigm selected, adapt roadmap for FP: types-first (algebraic data types before implementation)|composition pipelines|pure core/effect shell|effect boundaries instead of port interfaces. Strategic guidance only -- no code snippets/function signatures.
Roadmap Critical Rules
1. Never include implementation code in roadmaps. You design; software-crafter writes code. 2. Never create roadmaps without quantitative data. Halt and request measurement data when missing. 3. Roadmap steps with identical patterns (differing by substitution variable) must batch into single step. 3+ identical-pattern steps = batching opportunity.
Quality Gate (DELIVER only)
- [ ] Roadmap step count efficient (steps/production-files <= 2.5)
Canonical Format
Use ONLY compact nested format. See `nWave/templates/roadmap-schema.json` for fields/validation. Structure: `roadmap` metadata, `phases` with nested `steps`, `implementation_scope`, `validation`. Phase IDs: two digits (`"01"`). Step IDs: `"NN-MM"`.
Concision Requirements
Token efficiency: crafter reads roadmap ~35 times (7 phases x 5 steps). 5000-token x 35 = 175k tokens. 1000-token x 35 = 35k (80% savings).
Quantitative Limits
- Step description: max 50 words | AC per step: max 5 | Each AC: max 30 words
- Step notes: max 100 words
- Target: small (1-3 steps) = 500, medium (4-8) = 1500, large (9-15) = 3000 tokens
Include
WHAT to build (one sentence) | WHY (brief business value) | Observable outcomes (testable AC) | Architectural constraints | Integration points
Exclude
HOW to implement | code snippets/class names | algorithm descriptions | step-by-step instructions | tech tutorials | testing strategy (TDD standard) | motivational language | redundancy | examples when description clear
Compression Techniques
Bullets over prose | eliminate qualifiers | assume expertise | active voice | omit obvious
Acceptance Criteria Abstraction
AC describe observable outcomes, never internal implementation.
Rules
Describe WHAT (behavior) not HOW (implementation) | Never reference private methods (underscore prefix) | Never reference internal class decomposition | Never prescribe signatures/params/return types | Crafter decides structure during GREEN + REFACTOR
Good AC Examples
- "DES module importable from installation target after install"
- "DES utility scripts present and executable in scripts directory"
- "Installation uses backup before overwriting existing components"
Bad AC Examples (implementation-coupled)
- "_install_des_module() copies src/des/ to ~/.claude/lib/python/des/"
- "verify() checks DES module importable via subprocess test"
- "context.installation_verifier._check_agents() called for verification"
Step Decomposition Efficiency
Step Ratio Check
Rule: `steps_count / estimated_production_files <= 2.5` Violation = over-decomposition. Action: merge steps targeting same file.
Identical Pattern Detection
Rule: if N steps differ only by substitution variable, batch into 1 step. Threshold: 3+ identical-pattern steps must batch. Bad: 4 separate steps for AgentsPlugin, CommandsPlugin, TemplatesPlugin, UtilitiesPlugin Good: 1 step creating all 4
No-Op Prevention
Each step must add production code. Validation-only steps are not steps. Bad: "Step 02-05: Validate extraction with integration tests" Good: validation is part of preceding step's REVIEW phase
Step-to-Scenario Mapping
For roadmaps feeding DELIVER wave: 1. Read acceptance tests (tests/acceptance/test_*.py) before creating roadmap 2. Count scenarios (def test_*) | 3. ~1 step per scenario (flexibility for infra steps) 4. Mark infra steps: "type: infrastructure" | 5. Principle: 1 Scenario = 1 Step = 1 TDD Cycle
For each step mapped to a distilled acceptance scenario, populate:
- `test_file`: relative path to the test file (e.g., `tests/acceptance/test_auth.py`)
- `scenario_name`: the scenario/test function name (e.g., `test_login_with_valid_credentials`)
These fields enable the crafter to locate and unskip the exact pre-existing test during RED (3-phase canon per ADR-025; legacy logs record the same activation under the RED_ACCEPTANCE sub-step). If DISTILL was skipped, leave these fields empty — the crafter will write new tests.
Measure Before Plan Gate
Before any roadmap, verify: 1. Timing data shows WHERE time spent | 2. Impact ranking shows MOST contributing component | 3. Target validation provides evidence
Missing data: halt, request measurement, offer to help. Gate is blocking.
Simplest Solution Gate
Before multi-phase (>3 steps), document rejected alternatives:
Alternatives to Consider
1. Configuration-only (no code) | 2. Single-file change | 3. Existing tool/library | 4. Partial (solve 80% simply)
Documentation Format
## Rejected Simple Alternatives
### Alternative 1: {simplest approach}
- What: {description}
- Expected Impact: {% of problem solved}
- Why Insufficient: {evidence-based reason}
### Why Complex Solution Necessary
1. Simple alternatives fail due to: {specific reason with evidence}
2. Complexity justified by: {benefit simple sRead more
name: nw-roadmap-design description: Roadmap concision rules, step decomposition efficiency, AC abstraction guidelines, and step-to-scenario mapping. Load when creating implementation roadmaps. user-invocable: false disable-model-invocation: true
Roadmap Design
Roadmap Principles
When this skill is loaded, these principles activate in addition to the agent's core principles:
1. **Measure before planning**: Never create roadmap without quantitative baseline. Require timing breakdowns|impact rankings|target validation. Halt and request data when missing. 2. **Concise roadmaps**: Step descriptions max 50 words, AC max 5 per step at max 30 words each. Bullets over prose. Assume expertise. Eliminate qualifiers/motivational text. Token efficiency compounds -- crafter reads roadmap ~35 times. 3. **Paradigm-aware roadmap strategy**: When functional paradigm selected, adapt roadmap for FP: types-first (algebraic data types before implementation)|composition pipelines|pure core/effect shell|effect boundaries instead of port interfaces. Strategic guidance only -- no code snippets/function signatures.
Roadmap Critical Rules
1. Never include implementation code in roadmaps. You design; software-crafter writes code. 2. Never create roadmaps without quantitative data. Halt and request measurement data when missing. 3. Roadmap steps with identical patterns (differing by substitution variable) must batch into single step. 3+ identical-pattern steps = batching opportunity.
Quality Gate (DELIVER only)
- [ ] Roadmap step count efficient (steps/production-files <= 2.5)
Canonical Format
Use ONLY compact nested format. See `nWave/templates/roadmap-schema.json` for fields/validation. Structure: `roadmap` metadata, `phases` with nested `steps`, `implementation_scope`, `validation`. Phase IDs: two digits (`"01"`). Step IDs: `"NN-MM"`.
Concision Requirements
Token efficiency: crafter reads roadmap ~35 times (7 phases x 5 steps). 5000-token x 35 = 175k tokens. 1000-token x 35 = 35k (80% savings).
Quantitative Limits
- Step description: max 50 words | AC per step: max 5 | Each AC: max 30 words
- Step notes: max 100 words
- Target: small (1-3 steps) = 500, medium (4-8) = 1500, large (9-15) = 3000 tokens
Include
WHAT to build (one sentence) | WHY (brief business value) | Observable outcomes (testable AC) | Architectural constraints | Integration points
Exclude
HOW to implement | code snippets/class names | algorithm descriptions | step-by-step instructions | tech tutorials | testing strategy (TDD standard) | motivational language | redundancy | examples when description clear
Compression Techniques
Bullets over prose | eliminate qualifiers | assume expertise | active voice | omit obvious
Acceptance Criteria Abstraction
AC describe observable outcomes, never internal implementation.
Rules
Describe WHAT (behavior) not HOW (implementation) | Never reference private methods (underscore prefix) | Never reference internal class decomposition | Never prescribe signatures/params/return types | Crafter decides structure during GREEN + REFACTOR
Good AC Examples
- "DES module importable from installation target after install"
- "DES utility scripts present and executable in scripts directory"
- "Installation uses backup before overwriting existing components"
Bad AC Examples (implementation-coupled)
- "_install_des_module() copies src/des/ to ~/.claude/lib/python/des/"
- "verify() checks DES module importable via subprocess test"
- "context.installation_verifier._check_agents() called for verification"
Step Decomposition Efficiency
Step Ratio Check
Rule: `steps_count / estimated_production_files <= 2.5` Violation = over-decomposition. Action: merge steps targeting same file.
Identical Pattern Detection
Rule: if N steps differ only by substitution variable, batch into 1 step. Threshold: 3+ identical-pattern steps must batch. Bad: 4 separate steps for AgentsPlugin, CommandsPlugin, TemplatesPlugin, UtilitiesPlugin Good: 1 step creating all 4
No-Op Prevention
Each step must add production code. Validation-only steps are not steps. Bad: "Step 02-05: Validate extraction with integration tests" Good: validation is part of preceding step's REVIEW phase
Step-to-Scenario Mapping
For roadmaps feeding DELIVER wave: 1. Read acceptance tests (tests/acceptance/test_*.py) before creating roadmap 2. Count scenarios (def test_*) | 3. ~1 step per scenario (flexibility for infra steps) 4. Mark infra steps: "type: infrastructure" | 5. Principle: 1 Scenario = 1 Step = 1 TDD Cycle
For each step mapped to a distilled acceptance scenario, populate:
- `test_file`: relative path to the test file (e.g., `tests/acceptance/test_auth.py`)
- `scenario_name`: the scenario/test function name (e.g., `test_login_with_valid_credentials`)
These fields enable the crafter to locate and unskip the exact pre-existing test during RED (3-phase canon per ADR-025; legacy logs record the same activation under the RED_ACCEPTANCE sub-step). If DISTILL was skipped, leave these fields empty — the crafter will write new tests.
Measure Before Plan Gate
Before any roadmap, verify: 1. Timing data shows WHERE time spent | 2. Impact ranking shows MOST contributing component | 3. Target validation provides evidence
Missing data: halt, request measurement, offer to help. Gate is blocking.
Simplest Solution Gate
Before multi-phase (>3 steps), document rejected alternatives:
Alternatives to Consider
1. Configuration-only (no code) | 2. Single-file change | 3. Existing tool/library | 4. Partial (solve 80% simply)
Documentation Format
## Rejected Simple Alternatives
### Alternative 1: {simplest approach}
- What: {description}
- Expected Impact: {% of problem solved}
- Why Insufficient: {evidence-based reason}
### Why Complex Solution Necessary
1. Simple alternatives fail due to: {specific reason with evidence}
2. Complexity justified by: {benefit simple sAI 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

