/nw-sar-critique-dimensions

name: nw-sar-critique-dimensions
agent: nw-solution-architect-reviewer
description: Architecture quality critique dimensions for peer review. Load when performing architecture document reviews.
user-invocable: false
disable-model-invocation: true

Architecture Quality Critique Dimensions

Use current authorized scope and genuine exclusions/amendments with provenance. This rubric does not add universal DESIGN review. Reuse/SSOT and full native impact closure are owned by `nw-design`/`nw-code-craftsmanship`; assess both architecture/contract test applicability and observable prefactoring selections against the generated grammar, not incidental tool or file conventions. Apply `nw-typesafe-system-one`'s role-owned decision/agreement/boundary dimensions with local verified reasons; scores never offset a blocker or turn designed guarantees into observed evidence.

Load `nw-cross-cutting-invariants` and apply `flow:findings-go-to-the-owner-directly` when exchanging findings or questions between roles.

Dimension 1: Architectural Bias Detection

Technology Preference Bias

Pattern: tech chosen by preference, not requirements. Detection: ADR lacks comparison matrix, choice not mapped to requirements, justified only as "best practice." Severity: HIGH.

Resume-Driven Development

Pattern: complex/trendy tech without requirement justification. Examples: microservices for 3-person team, Kafka for 100 req/day, service mesh without complexity. Detection: complexity exceeds team size/requirements, tech adds resume value not solves problem. Severity: CRITICAL.

Latest Technology Bias

Pattern: unproven tech (<6 months, small community) for production. Detection: check maturity, community, LTS, fallback plan. Severity: HIGH.

Dimension 2: ADR Quality Validation

Missing Context

ADR lacks business problem, technical constraints, or quality attribute requirements. Future maintainers cannot validate. Severity: HIGH.

Missing Alternatives Analysis

Consider relevant alternatives, including adequate existing authority; reject with requirement-grounded reasons. A fixed number of alternatives or a comparison-table format is not a quality requirement. Severity: HIGH only for an actual missing consequential choice.

Missing Consequences

Omits positive/negative consequences and trade-offs. Quality attribute impact not analyzed. Severity: MEDIUM.

Delivery Ownership Drift

Pattern: an architecture assigns a builder the choice or revision of SML, waves, feature/bugfix routing, upstream rework, retry, stop/resume, or invocation. Detection: distinguish nwdes's handoff/document construction from the LLM's orchestration; confirm required independent review, EXAMINE and quality obligations remain. Severity: CRITICAL.

Dimension 3: Completeness Validation

Requested Scope Not Covered

Pattern: a required shared contract or dependency is unresolved, or a partial design is reported as covering the requested feature. Detection: compare the requested value graph with the shared contracts/dependencies/observation and the claimed coverage; cite the actual missing decision. An undesigned slice delta is open scope, not itself a defect. A single slice is not the whole feature. Do not demand speculative local implementation detail or accept adequate existing authority as missing. Severity: CRITICAL.

Missing Quality Attributes

Architecture fails a quality attribute actually promised by current authority. Examine the relevant security, reliability, performance, maintainability or observability contract; do not invent a universal attribute checklist. Severity: CRITICAL for a concrete required gap.

Missing Performance Architecture

Performance requirements exist but no optimization strategy (caching, indexing, rate limiting, CDN). Severity: CRITICAL.

Dimension 4: Implementation Feasibility

Team Capability Mismatch

Requires expertise team lacks. Verify learning curve reasonable, training plan exists. Severity: HIGH.

Budget Constraints

Infrastructure costs exceed budget. Verify cost estimate exists and aligns. Severity: HIGH.

Testability Validation

Architecture prevents effective testing. Components must enable isolated testing with ports/adapters. Severity: CRITICAL.

Dimension 5: Priority Validation

Validate roadmap addresses largest bottleneck.

**Q1**: Largest bottleneck? (timing data must confirm primary problem) **Q2**: Simpler alternatives considered? (rejected alternatives required) **Simple-design dimension** — apply `design:simplest-design-that-delivers` in `nw-cross-cutting-invariants`. **Q3**: Constraint prioritization correct? (quantified by impact, constraint-free first) **Q4**: Data-justified? (key decision with quantitative data)

Failure: Q1=NO (wrong problem) | Q2=MISSING (no alternatives) | Q3=INVERTED (>50% solution for <30% problem) | Q4=NO_DATA for performance

Review Output Format

review_id: "arch_rev_{timestamp}"
reviewer: "solution-architect-reviewer"
artifact: "docs/product/architecture/brief.md, docs/product/architecture/adr-*.md"
iteration: {1 or 2}

strengths:
  - "{Positive decision with ADR reference}"

issues_identified:
  architectural_bias:
    - issue: "{pattern detected}"
      severity: "critical|high|medium|low"
      location: "{ADR or section}"
      recommendation: "{actionable fix}"
  decision_quality:
    - issue: "{ADR quality issue}"
      severity: "high"
      location: "ADR-{number}"
      recommendation: "{add missing section}"
  completeness_gaps:
    - issue: "{quality attribute not addressed}"
      severity: "critical"
      recommendation: "{add architecture section}"
  implementation_feasibility:
    - issue: "{capability, budget, testability concern}"
      severity: "high"
      recommendation: "{simplify or add mitigation}"
  priority_validation:
    q1_largest_bottleneck:
      evidence: "{data or NOT PROVIDED}"
      assessment: "YES|NO|UNCLEAR"
    q2_simple_alternatives:
      assessment: "