nw-ab-critique-dimensi…
Review dimensions for validating agent quality - template compliance, safety, testing, and priority validation
Test design mandate enforcement, test budget validation, TDD phase validation (3-phase canon per ADR-025), and external validity checks for the software crafter reviewer
$ npx -y skills add nWave-ai/nWave --skill nw-tdd-review-enforcement --agent claude-codeHow it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
/nw-tdd-review-enforcementContext preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
Test design mandate enforcement, test budget validation, TDD phase validation (3-phase canon per ADR-025), and external validity checks for the software crafter reviewer
name: nw-tdd-review-enforcement description: Test design mandate enforcement, test budget validation, TDD phase validation (3-phase canon per ADR-025), and external validity checks for the software crafter reviewer user-invocable: false disable-model-invocation: true
Domain knowledge for reviewing TDD implementations against 5 test design mandates, test budget, TDD phase compliance (3-phase canon per ADR-025), and external validity.
---
All assertions validate observable outcomes, never internal structure.
Observable: return values from driving ports | state changes via queries | side effects at driven port boundaries | exceptions from public API | business invariants
Violations: asserting private fields | verifying internal method call order | inspecting intermediate calculations | checking internal class instantiation
Severity: Blocker. Rewrite to assert observable outcomes only.
Zero unit tests of domain entities/value objects/services directly. Test indirectly through application service (driving port) tests.
Violations: imports domain entity (Order, Customer) | instantiates value object (Money, Email) | invokes domain service method
Exception: complex standalone algorithm with stable public interface (rare). Severity: Blocker. Delete domain tests, add application service test.
All unit tests enter through driving ports (application services, controllers, CLI handlers, event handlers). Never internal classes.
Detection: grep for internal imports (`from domain.entity`, `from internal.validator`). Severity: Blocker. Rewrite through driving port.
Adapters have integration tests with real infrastructure (testcontainers, test servers). No mocked unit tests.
Violations: mocking IDbConnection | mocking SMTP client | stubs instead of real infrastructure Acceptable: in-memory implementations if behavior-complete. Severity: Blocker. Convert to integration test.
Input variations of same behavior use parametrized tests, not duplicates.
Violations: test_valid_email_1/test_valid_email_2 | copy-pasted tests with only inputs changed Severity: High. Consolidate into @pytest.mark.parametrize.
---
Formula: `max_unit_tests = 2 x number_of_distinct_behaviors`
A behavior = ONE observable outcome from a driving port action. Edge cases of same behavior = ONE (use parametrized).
One behavior: happy path for one operation | error handling for one error type | validation for one rule Not a behavior: testing internal class | same behavior different inputs | testing getters/setters | testing framework code
1. Count distinct behaviors in AC | 2. Calculate `budget = 2 x count` 3. Count actual test methods (parametrized cases don't add) | 4. Pass: actual <= budget. Fail: actual > budget (Blocker)
TEST BUDGET VALIDATION: FAILED Acceptance Criteria Analysis: - "User can register with valid email" = 1 behavior - "Invalid email format rejected" = 1 behavior - "Duplicate email rejected" = 1 behavior Budget: 3 behaviors x 2 = 6 unit tests maximum Actual: 14 unit tests Violations: 1. Budget exceeded: 14 > 6 (Blocker) 2. Internal class testing: test_user_validator.py tests UserValidator directly (Blocker) 3. Parameterization missing: 5 separate tests for valid email variations Required: delete internal tests, consolidate via parametrize, re-submit
---
Verify TDD phases in execution-log.json. **Current canonical (ADR-025, 2026-05-07): 3-phase cycle — RED → GREEN → COMMIT.** RED absorbs the legacy PREPARE / RED_ACCEPTANCE / RED_UNIT phases — it unskips the AT scaffold authored by DISTILL, verifies fail-for-right-reason, and writes PBT unit tests ONLY when the AT requires them to reach GREEN.
**Legacy 5-phase contract (ADR-024 era)**: PREPARE / RED_ACCEPTANCE / RED_UNIT / GREEN / COMMIT — preserved for audit-log replay of pre-2026-05-07 commits. Existing execution-log.json files using the 5-phase contract remain valid; the gates below apply equivalently to merged phases under the 3-phase canon.
| Gate | Description | Phase (3-phase canon) | Legacy phase (5-phase) | |------|-------------|-----------------------|------------------------| | G1 | Exactly one acceptance test active | RED | PREPARE | | G2 | Acceptance test fails for valid reason | RED | RED_ACCEPTANCE | | G3 | Unit test fails on assertion (when authored) | RED | RED_UNIT | | G4 | No mocks inside hexagon | RED | RED_UNIT | | G5 | Business language in tests | GREEN | GREEN | | G6 | All tests green | GREEN | GREEN | | G7 | 100% passing before commit | COMMIT | COMMIT | | G8 | Test count within budget | RED | RED_UNIT | | G9 | No test modifications to accommodate implementation | GREEN | GREEN |
Gates G2, G4, G7, G8, G9 are Blockers if not verified.
Note: Review/refactoring quality verified at deliver-level Phase 4 (Adversarial Review).
When `is_walking_skeleton: true`: don't flag missing unit tests | verify exactly one E2E test | thinnest slice OK (hardcoded values) | unit-test authoring inside RED may be skipped (3-phase canon) or RED_UNIT/GREEN entries SKIPPED with "NOT_APPLICABLE: walking skeleton" (5-phase legacy logs).
---
Verify features are invocable through entry points, not just existing in code.
Question: "If I follow these steps, will the feature WORK or just EXIST?"
1. Ac
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…