/nw-tr-review-criteria
Review dimensions and scoring for root cause analysis quality assessment
$ npx -y skills add nWave-ai/nWave --skill nw-tr-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-tr-review-criteria
Context preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
Review dimensions and scoring for root cause analysis quality assessment
SKILL.md
nw-tr-review-criteria.SKILL.mdname: nw-tr-review-criteria
description: Review dimensions and scoring for root cause analysis quality assessment
user-invocable: false
disable-model-invocation: true
Troubleshooter Review Criteria
Review dimensions and scoring for root cause analysis quality assessment.
Dimension 1: Causality Logic
Check each WHY-to-WHY link.
Pass: logical mechanism (not just correlation) | no skipped steps | alternatives considered/eliminated | chain reads coherently both directions
Failures: correlation assumed as causation | causal chain gaps | single-path tunnel vision (first plausible cause accepted)
Severity: Critical -- wrong root cause = ineffective fixes.
Dimension 2: Evidence Quality
Verify findings grounded in observable data.
Pass: each WHY cites specific evidence (logs, metrics, config, repro steps) | evidence verifiable by third party | timeline supports causality | hypotheses marked unverified
Failures: "Probably because..." without data | vague references ("logs show issues") | mixing facts with speculation unlabeled
Severity: High -- unreliable analysis undermines trust.
Dimension 3: Alternative Hypotheses
Verify competing explanations explored.
Pass: 2+ alternatives at WHY 1-3 | each pursued or eliminated with evidence | "why not" reasoning documented
Failures: stops at first plausible cause | alternatives mentioned but unevaluated | confirmation bias
Severity: High -- may miss actual root cause.
Dimension 4: Five-WHY Depth
Verify analysis reaches fundamental causes.
Pass: each branch reaches WHY 5 (or justifies stopping with evidence) | final causes are actionable | causes explain symptoms when traced forward
Failures: stopping at WHY 2-3 | WHY 5 vague/philosophical not actionable | branches abandoned
Severity: High -- shallow analysis = band-aid fixes that recur.
Dimension 5: Completeness and Coverage
Verify all symptoms accounted for.
Pass: all symptoms have causal branch | root causes collectively explain all | no orphan symptoms | cross-cause validation (no contradictions)
Failures: symptoms ignored | root causes explain primary but not secondary | contradictory causes without reconciliation
Severity: Medium -- incomplete analysis leaves unaddressed failures.
Dimension 6: Solution Traceability
Verify solutions map to root causes.
Pass: every root cause has solution | immediate mitigations vs permanent fixes distinguished | no orphan solutions | prevention addresses systemic factors
Failures: solutions address symptoms not causes | root cause without fix | generic recommendations untied to findings
Severity: Medium -- untraceable solutions are guesses.
Review Output Format
review_id: "rca_rev_{timestamp}"
reviewer: "nw-troubleshooter-reviewer"
dimensions:
causality_logic:
score: 0-10
issues: [{issue, severity, recommendation}]
evidence_quality:
score: 0-10
issues: [{issue, severity, recommendation}]
alternative_hypotheses:
score: 0-10
issues: [{issue, severity, recommendation}]
five_why_depth:
score: 0-10
issues: [{issue, severity, recommendation}]
completeness:
score: 0-10
issues: [{issue, severity, recommendation}]
solution_traceability:
score: 0-10
issues: [{issue, severity, recommendation}]
overall_score: "average of dimension scores"
approval_status: "approved | revisions_required"
summary: "1-2 sentence assessment"Scoring Guide
- **9-10**: Exemplary. No issues or minor style only.
- **7-8**: Good. Minor issues not affecting conclusions.
- **5-6**: Adequate. Issues weaken but don't invalidate.
- **3-4**: Poor. Issues may lead to incorrect conclusions.
- **1-2**: Failing. Fundamental flaws invalidate analysis.
**Approval threshold**: overall >= 7 and no dimension below 5.
Read more
name: nw-tr-review-criteria description: Review dimensions and scoring for root cause analysis quality assessment user-invocable: false disable-model-invocation: true
Troubleshooter Review Criteria
Review dimensions and scoring for root cause analysis quality assessment.
Dimension 1: Causality Logic
Check each WHY-to-WHY link.
Pass: logical mechanism (not just correlation) | no skipped steps | alternatives considered/eliminated | chain reads coherently both directions
Failures: correlation assumed as causation | causal chain gaps | single-path tunnel vision (first plausible cause accepted)
Severity: Critical -- wrong root cause = ineffective fixes.
Dimension 2: Evidence Quality
Verify findings grounded in observable data.
Pass: each WHY cites specific evidence (logs, metrics, config, repro steps) | evidence verifiable by third party | timeline supports causality | hypotheses marked unverified
Failures: "Probably because..." without data | vague references ("logs show issues") | mixing facts with speculation unlabeled
Severity: High -- unreliable analysis undermines trust.
Dimension 3: Alternative Hypotheses
Verify competing explanations explored.
Pass: 2+ alternatives at WHY 1-3 | each pursued or eliminated with evidence | "why not" reasoning documented
Failures: stops at first plausible cause | alternatives mentioned but unevaluated | confirmation bias
Severity: High -- may miss actual root cause.
Dimension 4: Five-WHY Depth
Verify analysis reaches fundamental causes.
Pass: each branch reaches WHY 5 (or justifies stopping with evidence) | final causes are actionable | causes explain symptoms when traced forward
Failures: stopping at WHY 2-3 | WHY 5 vague/philosophical not actionable | branches abandoned
Severity: High -- shallow analysis = band-aid fixes that recur.
Dimension 5: Completeness and Coverage
Verify all symptoms accounted for.
Pass: all symptoms have causal branch | root causes collectively explain all | no orphan symptoms | cross-cause validation (no contradictions)
Failures: symptoms ignored | root causes explain primary but not secondary | contradictory causes without reconciliation
Severity: Medium -- incomplete analysis leaves unaddressed failures.
Dimension 6: Solution Traceability
Verify solutions map to root causes.
Pass: every root cause has solution | immediate mitigations vs permanent fixes distinguished | no orphan solutions | prevention addresses systemic factors
Failures: solutions address symptoms not causes | root cause without fix | generic recommendations untied to findings
Severity: Medium -- untraceable solutions are guesses.
Review Output Format
review_id: "rca_rev_{timestamp}"
reviewer: "nw-troubleshooter-reviewer"
dimensions:
causality_logic:
score: 0-10
issues: [{issue, severity, recommendation}]
evidence_quality:
score: 0-10
issues: [{issue, severity, recommendation}]
alternative_hypotheses:
score: 0-10
issues: [{issue, severity, recommendation}]
five_why_depth:
score: 0-10
issues: [{issue, severity, recommendation}]
completeness:
score: 0-10
issues: [{issue, severity, recommendation}]
solution_traceability:
score: 0-10
issues: [{issue, severity, recommendation}]
overall_score: "average of dimension scores"
approval_status: "approved | revisions_required"
summary: "1-2 sentence assessment"Scoring Guide
- **9-10**: Exemplary. No issues or minor style only.
- **7-8**: Good. Minor issues not affecting conclusions.
- **5-6**: Adequate. Issues weaken but don't invalidate.
- **3-4**: Poor. Issues may lead to incorrect conclusions.
- **1-2**: Failing. Fundamental flaws invalidate analysis.
**Approval threshold**: overall >= 7 and no dimension below 5.
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

