nw-par-critique-dimensions
Platform design review critique dimensions and severity levels. Load when reviewing CI/CD pipelines, infrastructure, deployment strategies, observability, or security designs.
Best use case
nw-par-critique-dimensions is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
Platform design review critique dimensions and severity levels. Load when reviewing CI/CD pipelines, infrastructure, deployment strategies, observability, or security designs.
Teams using nw-par-critique-dimensions should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.
When to use this skill
- You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.
When not to use this skill
- You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
- You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.
Installation
Claude Code / Cursor / Codex
Manual Installation
- Download SKILL.md from GitHub
- Place it in
.claude/skills/nw-par-critique-dimensions/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How nw-par-critique-dimensions Compares
| Feature / Agent | nw-par-critique-dimensions | Standard Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Platform Support | Not specified | Limited / Varies |
| Context Awareness | High | Baseline |
| Installation Complexity | Unknown | N/A |
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this skill do?
Platform design review critique dimensions and severity levels. Load when reviewing CI/CD pipelines, infrastructure, deployment strategies, observability, or security designs.
Where can I find the source code?
You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.
SKILL.md Source
# Platform Design Critique Dimensions ## Dimension 1: CI/CD Pipeline Completeness Questions: All stages defined (commit, acceptance, capacity, production)? Quality gates explicit with pass/fail criteria? Parallelization used? Failure recovery/retry documented? Commit stage < 10 min, acceptance < 30 min? Blocker: Missing critical stage (no acceptance tests) | no quality gates | no security scanning. Critical: Pipeline > 30 min without parallelization | no failure notification | missing artifact versioning. High: No caching strategy | incomplete environment parity | missing matrix testing. Medium: Inconsistent naming | missing documentation for manual steps. ## Dimension 2: Infrastructure as Code Quality Questions: Infrastructure fully codified? Modules reusable and parameterized? State management secure (encrypted, locked)? Security best practices (least privilege, encryption)? Idempotent and reproducible? Blocker: Secrets in version control | no state management | production credentials in code. Critical: No encryption at rest | overly permissive IAM | missing network security. High: Hardcoded values | missing resource tagging | no cost estimation. Medium: Inconsistent module structure | missing input variable validation. ## Dimension 3: Deployment Strategy Risk Questions: Strategy appropriate for risk profile? Rollback documented? Health checks and readiness probes defined? Gradual traffic shifting with automatic rollback? Database migrations backward compatible? Blocker: No rollback strategy | no health checks | breaking changes without safeguards. Critical: Single-shot deployment for critical services | no canary/blue-green for high-traffic | missing pod disruption budgets. High: Rollback not tested | no gradual traffic shifting | no pre-deployment validation. Medium: Incomplete manual step documentation | no feature flags for risky features. ## Dimension 4: Observability and SLO Alignment Questions: SLOs defined with specific targets? All four golden signals monitored? Distributed tracing configured? Alerts SLO burn-rate based? Dashboards for investigation? Blocker: No SLOs defined | no error rate monitoring | no alerting strategy. Critical: No latency monitoring (p50/p90/p99) | symptom-based alerts | no log-metric-trace correlation. High: Incomplete metric coverage | alert thresholds misaligned with SLOs | no runbook links. Medium: Unclear dashboard organization | missing error budget tracking. ## Dimension 5: Pipeline and Infrastructure Security Questions: SAST in commit stage? DAST before production? SCA configured? Secrets management using external vault? SBOM generated and signed? Blocker: No security scanning | secrets in env vars or code | no container image scanning. Critical: Missing SAST in CI | no dependency vulnerability scanning | missing K8s network policies. High: No DAST before production | no SBOM generation | no image signing. Medium: Security scan results not blocking deployment | no license compliance. ## Dimension 6: DORA Metrics Enablement Questions: Design enables multiple deployments/day? Lead time < 1 hour achievable? Change failure rate tracking in place? Time to restore measurable with SLOs? Critical: Manual steps preventing daily deployments | no automated testing for fast feedback | no deployment failure tracking. High: Pipeline > 1 hour for full deployment | no post-deployment validation | missing deployment frequency metrics. ## Dimension 7: Priority and Constraint Validation Questions: Design addresses largest bottleneck first? Simpler alternatives documented and rejected with evidence? Constraint prioritization correct? Complexity justified? Critical: Design addresses secondary concern while larger exists | no measurement data | simple alternatives not documented. High: Constraint prioritization not explicit | over-engineered for stated requirements.
Related Skills
nw-sc-review-dimensions
Reviewer critique dimensions for peer review - implementation bias detection, test quality validation, completeness checks, and priority validation
nw-sar-critique-dimensions
Architecture quality critique dimensions for peer review. Load when performing architecture document reviews.
nw-sa-critique-dimensions
Architecture quality critique dimensions for peer review. Load when invoking solution-architect-reviewer or performing self-review of architecture documents.
nw-rr-critique-dimensions
Critique dimensions and scoring for research document reviews
nw-po-review-dimensions
Requirements quality critique dimensions for peer review - confirmation bias detection, completeness validation, clarity checks, testability assessment, and priority validation
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
nw-abr-critique-dimensions
Review dimensions for validating agent quality - template compliance, safety, testing, and priority validation
nw-ab-critique-dimensions
Review dimensions for validating agent quality - template compliance, safety, testing, and priority validation
nw-ux-web-patterns
Web UI design patterns for product owners. Load when designing web application interfaces, writing web-specific acceptance criteria, or evaluating responsive designs.
nw-ux-tui-patterns
Terminal UI and CLI design patterns for product owners. Load when designing command-line tools, interactive terminal applications, or writing CLI-specific acceptance criteria.
nw-ux-principles
Core UX principles for product owners. Load when evaluating interface designs, writing acceptance criteria with UX requirements, or reviewing wireframes and mockups.
nw-ux-emotional-design
Emotional design and delight patterns for product owners. Load when designing onboarding flows, empty states, first-run experiences, or evaluating the emotional quality of an interface.