nw-pdr-review-criteria

Evidence quality validation and decision gate criteria for product discovery reviews

322 stars

Best use case

nw-pdr-review-criteria is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.

Evidence quality validation and decision gate criteria for product discovery reviews

Teams using nw-pdr-review-criteria 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

$curl -o ~/.claude/skills/nw-pdr-review-criteria/SKILL.md --create-dirs "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/nWave-ai/nWave/main/nWave/skills/nw-pdr-review-criteria/SKILL.md"

Manual Installation

  1. Download SKILL.md from GitHub
  2. Place it in .claude/skills/nw-pdr-review-criteria/SKILL.md inside your project
  3. Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill

How nw-pdr-review-criteria Compares

Feature / Agentnw-pdr-review-criteriaStandard Approach
Platform SupportNot specifiedLimited / Varies
Context Awareness High Baseline
Installation ComplexityUnknownN/A

Frequently Asked Questions

What does this skill do?

Evidence quality validation and decision gate criteria for product discovery reviews

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.

Related Guides

SKILL.md Source

# 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.

Related Skills

nw-tr-review-criteria

322
from nWave-ai/nWave

Review dimensions and scoring for root cause analysis quality assessment

nw-tdd-review-enforcement

322
from nWave-ai/nWave

Test design mandate enforcement, test budget validation, 5-phase TDD validation, and external validity checks for the software crafter reviewer

nw-sc-review-dimensions

322
from nWave-ai/nWave

Reviewer critique dimensions for peer review - implementation bias detection, test quality validation, completeness checks, and priority validation

nw-roadmap-review-checks

322
from nWave-ai/nWave

Roadmap-specific validation checks for architecture reviews. Load when reviewing roadmaps for implementation readiness.

nw-review

322
from nWave-ai/nWave

Dispatches an expert reviewer agent to critique workflow artifacts. Use when a roadmap, implementation, or step needs quality review before proceeding.

nw-review-workflow

322
from nWave-ai/nWave

Detailed review process, v2 validation checklist, and scoring methodology for agent definition reviews

nw-review-output-format

322
from nWave-ai/nWave

YAML output format and approval criteria for platform design reviews. Load when generating review feedback.

nw-por-review-criteria

322
from nWave-ai/nWave

Review dimensions and bug patterns for journey artifact reviews

nw-po-review-dimensions

322
from nWave-ai/nWave

Requirements quality critique dimensions for peer review - confirmation bias detection, completeness validation, clarity checks, testability assessment, and priority validation

nw-par-review-criteria

322
from nWave-ai/nWave

Quality dimensions and review checklist for devop reviews

nw-dr-review-criteria

322
from nWave-ai/nWave

Critique dimensions, severity framework, verdict decision matrix, and review output format for documentation assessment reviews

nw-diverger-review-criteria

322
from nWave-ai/nWave

Review criteria for the nw-diverger-reviewer — validates JTBD rigor, research quality, option diversity, taste application correctness, and recommendation coherence in DIVERGE wave artifacts