mcpbeat Sign in

Nw Pdr Review Criteria Agent Skill

Evidence quality validation and decision gate criteria for product discovery reviews

1k tokens
context cost
the whole folder, loaded on every use
1
files
instructions only
0
copies elsewhere
how many repositories repackaged it
588
stars on the repo
on the repository, not the skill itself

Install

one command, takes just this skill from the repository
npx skills add https://github.com/nWave-ai/nWave --skill nw-pdr-review-criteria

The instruction itself

27 sections, as written by the author

Review Criteria -- Product Discovery Review

Evidence Quality Validation

Past Behavior Indicators (Good)

"Tell me about the last time..." | "When did you last..." | "What happened when..." | "Walk me through how you..." | "What did you try..." | "How much have you spent on..."

Specific dates, dollar amounts, named tools, concrete examples, emotional frustration language

Future Intent Red Flags (Reject)

"Would you use/pay/like..." | "Do you think..." | "Imagine if..." | "What if we..."

Flag and reject if >20% of evidence is future-intent.

Validation Thresholds

  • Past behavior ratio: >80% (reject if fail, require re-interview)
  • Specific examples: min 3 concrete per finding (warn if fail)
  • Customer language: quotes in customer words, not paraphrased (warn if fail)

Sample Size Minimums

| Phase | Minimum | High Confidence | Notes |

|-------|---------|-----------------|-------|

| 1: Problem | 5 | 10 | Interviews required |

| 2: Opportunity | 10 | 20 | Quantitative supplements, not replaces |

| 3: Solution | 5 per iteration | 3 iterations max | Before decision |

| 4: Viability | 5 | -- | Stakeholder review required |

Pivot decision rule: min 5 consistent signals. Block decisions on fewer.

Decision Gate Criteria

G1: Problem to Opportunity

Proceed: 5+ confirm pain + willingness to pay | Pivot: differs from expected | Kill: <20% confirm

Checks: 5+ interviews, >60% confirmation, customer words, 3+ examples

G2: Opportunity to Solution

Proceed: top 2-3 score >8 (0-20) | Pivot: new opportunities | Kill: all low-value

Checks: OST complete with 5+, scores correct (Importance + Max(0, Importance - Satisfaction)), top >8/20

G3: Solution to Viability

Proceed: >80% task completion, usability validated | Pivot: needs refinement | Kill: fundamental blocks

Checks: 5+ users/iteration, >80% completion, core flow usable, value validated

G4: Viability to Build

Proceed: 4 risks addressed, model validated | Pivot: adjustment needed | Kill: no viable model

Checks: Lean Canvas complete, all risks green/yellow, stakeholder sign-off

Bias Types

Confirmation Bias (critical)

Signals: only positive quotes | skeptics not interviewed | disconfirming evidence dismissed | same questions for "right" answers

Fix: include skeptics, actively seek disconfirming evidence

Selection Bias (high)

Signals: all existing customers | no churned/non-adopters | lacks diversity | single-enthusiast referral chain

Fix: random/diverse selection, include skeptics and non-users

Discovery Theater (critical)

Signals: conclusion decided before research | findings match hypothesis perfectly | no surprises | idea-in = idea-shipped

Fix: track idea evolution, expect 50%+ ideas to change

Sample Size Problem (high)

Signals: major decisions on 2-3 interviews | single quote as "validation" | pivot on one signal

Fix: min 5 interviews per segment, 5+ signals for decisions

Anti-Patterns

Interview Anti-Patterns

| Pattern | Detection | Bad | Good | Severity |

|---------|-----------|-----|------|----------|

| Leading questions | Suggests desired answer | "Don't you think this would save time?" | "Tell me about the last time you tried to save time on this" | high |

| Future-intent | Hypothetical behavior | "Would you use this feature?" | "What have you tried to solve this problem?" | critical |

| Compliments as validation | Accepting "that's cool" | "They loved the idea!" | "They committed to follow-up and referral" | high |

| Talking > listening | >30% interviewer talk | Long questions, short responses | Open questions, extended answers | medium |

Process Anti-Patterns

| Pattern | Detection | Severity |

|---------|-----------|----------|

| Skipping to solutions | Solution before problem validated | critical |

| Demographic segmentation | Segments by demographics not jobs | medium |

| Building before testing | Code before Phase 3 | critical |

Strategic Anti-Patterns

| Pattern | Detection | Severity |

|---------|-----------|----------|

| Premature pivoting | Direction change on 1-2 signals (need 5+) | high |

| Solution love | Defending despite evidence, dismissing critics | high |

| Sole source of truth | Only quant OR qual, not both | medium |

Pre-Approval Checklist

Evidence Quality

  • [ ] Past behavior ratio >80% | [ ] No critical future-intent | [ ] Customer language preserved

Sample Sizes

  • [ ] Phase 1: 5+ | [ ] Phase 2: 10+ | [ ] Phase 3: 5+/iteration | [ ] Phase 4: 5+ with stakeholders

Decision Gates

  • [ ] All gates properly evaluated | [ ] Criteria documented with evidence | [ ] Decision justified

Bias Check

  • [ ] No confirmation bias | [ ] No selection bias | [ ] No discovery theater | [ ] Sample size adequate

Anti-Patterns

  • [ ] No critical interview anti-patterns | [ ] No critical process anti-patterns | [ ] No critical strategic anti-patterns

Approval Decision

  • Approved: all checks pass, no critical issues. Formal handoff to product-owner.
  • Conditionally approved: minor issues only (no critical/high). Approval with recommendations.
  • Rejected: any critical/high issue. Structured rejection with remediation. Blocks handoff.

Other skills for the same job

different authors, same section of the catalogue
Doc Coauthoring
by anthropics
vendor ×10

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.

4k tokens
File Organizer
by frostant
×10

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.

3k tokens
Domain Name Brainstormer
by frostant
×8

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.

1k tokens
Brainstorming
by ZhanlinCui
×4

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.

626 tokens
Planning With Files
by ZhanlinCui
×3

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.

9k tokens scripts
Scientific Brainstorming
by christophacham
×3

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.

5k tokens
GitHub Project Management
by ComeOnOliver
×3

Comprehensive GitHub project management with swarm-coordinated issue tracking, project board automation, and sprint planning

14k tokens
Grill Me
by ComeOnOliver
×3

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".

3k tokens

How to use it

Copy the folder

Take nwave-ai/nw-pdr-review-criteria from the repository into ~/.claude/skills for personal use, or into .claude/skills inside a project.

Check the name does not clash

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.