Nw Par Review Criteria Agent Skill
Quality dimensions and review checklist for devop reviews
Install
one command, takes just this skill from the repositorynpx skills add https://github.com/nWave-ai/nWave --skill nw-par-review-criteriaThe instruction itself
13 sections, as written by the authorDevOp Reviewer: Review Criteria
Critique Dimension 1: Incomplete Phase Handoffs
Pattern: Phase handoffs missing required artifacts or approvals.
Required per Phase:
- DISCUSS: Requirements document + peer review approval
- DESIGN: Architecture document + ADRs + peer review approval
- DISTILL: Acceptance tests + peer review approval
- DELIVER: Production code + tests (100% passing) + peer review approval
Severity: critical. Verify all artifacts present and peer-reviewed before phase transition.
Critique Dimension 2: Deployment Readiness Gaps
Pattern: Feature marked "ready" but missing production prerequisites.
Required: All tests passing (100%) | Production configuration complete | Monitoring/alerting configured | Runbook/operational docs created | Rollback plan documented.
Severity: critical. Complete missing prerequisite before marking deployment-ready.
Critique Dimension 3: Traceability Violations
Pattern: Cannot trace production code back to requirements.
Required: User stories map to acceptance tests | Acceptance tests map to production code | Code changes traceable to commits | All AC verified in production.
Severity: high. Establish traceability chain: user-story -> acceptance-tests -> code-commits.
Critique Dimension 4: Priority Validation
Purpose: Validate roadmap addresses largest bottleneck first, not secondary concern.
Questions
Q1: Is this the largest bottleneck?
Does timing data show primary problem? Larger problem being ignored? Assessment: YES / NO / UNCLEAR.
Q2: Were simpler alternatives considered?
Roadmap includes rejected alternatives? Rejection reasons evidence-based? Simpler solution achieves 80% benefit? Assessment: ADEQUATE / INADEQUATE / MISSING.
Q3: Is constraint prioritization correct?
Constraints quantified by impact? Architecture addresses constraint-free opportunities first? Minority constraint dominating? (flag if >50% of solution for <30% of problem). Assessment: CORRECT / INVERTED / NOT_ANALYZED.
Q4: Is architecture data-justified?
Key architectural decision supported by quantitative data? Different data leads to different architecture? Assessment: JUSTIFIED / UNJUSTIFIED / NO_DATA.
Failure Conditions
- FAIL if Q1 = NO (wrong problem being addressed)
- FAIL if Q2 = MISSING (no alternatives considered)
- FAIL if Q3 = INVERTED (minority constraint dominating)
- FAIL if Q4 = NO_DATA and this is performance optimization
Critique Dimension 5: Functional Integration
Purpose: Verify feature wired into system entry point -- prevents Testing Theatre.
A feature with 100% test coverage but 0% wiring tests is not complete.
Validation Criteria:
- Wiring test exists: at least one acceptance test invokes feature through driving port
- Component integrated: implemented component called from entry point module
- Boundary correct: acceptance tests do not import internal components directly
Gate failure response: Block finalization | report specific integration gap with evidence | require integration step before completion.
Quality Gate Checklist
Technical Completion
- [ ] All acceptance tests passing with stakeholder validation
- [ ] Unit test coverage meeting project standards (>=80%)
- [ ] Integration test validation of cross-component functionality
- [ ] Code review completed with approval
- [ ] Static analysis and security scan passed
- [ ] Performance tested under realistic load
Architecture Compliance
- [ ] Implementation aligns with architectural design
- [ ] Component boundaries and interfaces respected
- [ ] Security architecture implemented correctly
Production Readiness
- [ ] Monitoring and alerting configured
- [ ] Logging and debugging capability validated
- [ ] Rollback procedure documented and tested
- [ ] Operational runbook complete
- [ ] Support team trained / knowledge transferred
Business Completion
- [ ] All user stories completed with acceptance criteria met
- [ ] Business rules implemented and validated
- [ ] Stakeholder acceptance obtained
Other skills for the same job
different authors, same section of the catalogue
Guide users through a structured workflow for co-authoring documentation. Use when user wants to write documentation, proposals, technical specs, decision docs, or similar structured content. This workflow helps users efficiently transfer context, refine content through iteration, and verify the doc works for readers. Trigger when user mentions writing docs, creating proposals, drafting specs, or similar documentation tasks.
Intelligently organizes your files and folders across your computer by understanding context, finding duplicates, suggesting better structures, and automating cleanup tasks. Reduces cognitive load and keeps your digital workspace tidy without manual effort.
Generates creative domain name ideas for your project and checks availability across multiple TLDs (.com, .io, .dev, .ai, etc.). Saves hours of brainstorming and manual checking.
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.
Implements Manus-style file-based planning for complex tasks. Creates task_plan.md, findings.md, and progress.md. Use when starting complex multi-step tasks, research projects, or any task requiring >5 tool calls.
Creative research ideation and exploration. Use for open-ended brainstorming sessions, exploring interdisciplinary connections, challenging assumptions, or identifying research gaps. Best for early-stage research planning when you do not have specific observations yet. For formulating testable hypotheses from data use hypothesis-generation.
Comprehensive GitHub project management with swarm-coordinated issue tracking, project board automation, and sprint planning
Interview the user relentlessly about a plan or design until reaching shared understanding, resolving each branch of the decision tree. Use when user wants to stress-test a plan, get grilled on their design, or mentions "grill me".
How to use it
Take nwave-ai/nw-par-review-criteria from the repository into ~/.claude/skills for personal
use, or into .claude/skills inside a project.
The agent identifies a skill by the name field in its header. Two skills with the
same name cannot sit side by side — one of them will be ignored.