nw-review
Dispatches an expert reviewer agent to critique workflow artifacts. Use when a roadmap, implementation, or step needs quality review before proceeding.
Best use case
nw-review is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
Dispatches an expert reviewer agent to critique workflow artifacts. Use when a roadmap, implementation, or step needs quality review before proceeding.
Teams using nw-review 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-review/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How nw-review Compares
| Feature / Agent | nw-review | 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?
Dispatches an expert reviewer agent to critique workflow artifacts. Use when a roadmap, implementation, or step needs quality review before proceeding.
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
Best AI Skills for Claude
Explore the best AI skills for Claude and Claude Code across coding, research, workflow automation, documentation, and agent operations.
AI Agents for Coding
Browse AI agent skills for coding, debugging, testing, refactoring, code review, and developer workflows across Claude, Cursor, and Codex.
Cursor vs Codex for AI Workflows
Compare Cursor and Codex for AI coding workflows, repository assistance, debugging, refactoring, and reusable developer skills.
SKILL.md Source
# NW-REVIEW: Expert Critique and Quality Assurance
**Wave**: CROSS_WAVE
**Agent**: Dynamic (nw-*-reviewer)
## Overview
Dispatches expert reviewer agent to critique workflow artifacts. Takes base agent name, appends `-reviewer`, invokes with artifact. Reviewer agent owns all review methodology|criteria|output format.
## Review Philosophy: Radical Candor
Every review MUST embody Radical Candor — kind AND clear, specific AND sincere:
- **Care personally**: Acknowledge what works. Understand author's intent before critiquing. Include at least one genuine `praise:` per review.
- **Challenge directly**: Be specific about what is wrong and WHY. Ground feedback in evidence|consequences, not preference. Never soften security/data-loss issues.
- **Avoid ruinous empathy**: Never "LGTM" when real issues exist. Hedging ("maybe consider possibly...") on blocking concerns is a review failure.
- **Avoid obnoxious aggression**: Never "this is terrible" without constructive alternative. Focus on work, not author. Explain "why" behind every critique.
## Feedback Format: Conventional Comments
All findings MUST use Conventional Comments labels:
| Label | Purpose | Blocking? |
|---|---|---|
| `praise:` | Highlight something done well (genuine, not filler) | No |
| `issue (blocking):` | Must be resolved before proceeding | Yes |
| `issue (blocking, security):` | Security vulnerability — maximum directness | Yes |
| `suggestion:` | Propose improvement with reasoning | Mark `(blocking)` or `(non-blocking)` |
| `nitpick (non-blocking):` | Trivial, preference-based | No |
| `question (non-blocking):` | Seek clarification before assuming | No |
| `thought (non-blocking):` | Idea sparked by the review | No |
Findings MUST be priority-ordered: blocking issues first, then suggestions, then nitpicks/praise.
## Approval Criteria
| Verdict | Criteria |
|---|---|
| **APPROVED** | No blocking issues. Non-blocking feedback is advisory. |
| **NEEDS_REVISION** | Blocking issues exist. Author must address. Each blocking issue enumerated. |
| **REJECTED** | Fundamental design problems requiring significant rework. Rare — explain thoroughly, offer alternatives. |
## Syntax
```
/nw-review @{agent-name} {artifact-type} "{artifact-path}" [step_id={id}] [--dimensions=rpp] [--from=1] [--to=3]
```
**Parameters:**
- `@{agent-name}` - Base agent (e.g., `@nw-software-crafter`). `-reviewer` suffix appended automatically.
- `{artifact-type}` - One of: `baseline`, `roadmap`, `step`, `task`, `implementation`
- `{artifact-path}` - Path to artifact file (resolved to absolute)
- `step_id={id}` - Required for step and implementation reviews
- `--dimensions=rpp` - Triggers RPP code smell scan alongside standard review (Dimension 4)
- `--from=N` / `--to=N` - RPP level range (default: 1-6). Requires `--dimensions=rpp`
## Rigor Profile Integration
Before dispatching the reviewer agent, read rigor config from `.nwave/des-config.json` (key: `rigor`). If absent, use standard defaults.
- **`review_enabled`**: If `false`, skip the review entirely. Output: "Review skipped per rigor profile (review_enabled=false)."
- **`reviewer_model`**: Pass as `model` parameter to Task tool. If `"skip"`, skip the review. Overrides the default Haiku model.
- **`double_review`**: If `true` and called from deliver Phase 4, the caller is responsible for invoking review twice.
## Agent Derivation
| User provides | Reviewer invoked |
|---|---|
| `@nw-software-crafter` | `nw-software-crafter-reviewer` |
| `@nw-solution-architect` | `nw-solution-architect-reviewer` |
| `@nw-platform-architect` | `nw-platform-architect-reviewer` |
Default model: Haiku (overridden by `rigor.reviewer_model` when set).
## Agent Invocation
1. **Parse parameters** — Strip `@` from agent name, resolve artifact path to absolute, extract optional step_id, dimensions, from/to range. Gate: all parameters parsed.
2. **Read rigor config** — Read `.nwave/des-config.json` key `rigor`. If absent, use standard defaults. Gate: rigor profile loaded or defaults applied.
3. **Validate inputs** — Run all four validation checks below. Gate: zero validation failures.
4. **Apply rigor overrides** — Check `review_enabled` (skip if false), determine model from `reviewer_model` (default: haiku, skip if "skip"). Gate: execution decision made.
5. **Invoke reviewer** — Call Task tool with `subagent_type="{agent-name}-reviewer"`, resolved model, and prompt `"Review {artifact-type}: {absolute-artifact-path} [step_id={id}]"`. Reviewer handles reading artifact, applying domain expertise, generating structured critique, updating original artifact with review metadata. Gate: Task tool invoked.
## Validation (before invoking)
1. **Agent exists** — Strip `@`, check agent name against agent registry. Gate: agent found or return "Unknown agent: {name}. Check available agents with /nw-agents."
2. **Artifact type valid** — Confirm type is one of: baseline, roadmap, step, task, implementation. Gate: type valid or return "Invalid artifact type: {type}. Use: baseline, roadmap, step, task, implementation."
3. **Artifact file exists** — Resolve to absolute path and confirm file exists. Gate: file found or return "Artifact not found: {path}."
4. **step_id present when required** — Require step_id when artifact type is `step` or `implementation`. Gate: step_id provided or return "step_id required for {type} reviews."
## Success Criteria
- [ ] Reviewer agent invoked (not self-performed)
- [ ] Original artifact file updated with review metadata
- [ ] Review includes severity levels and approval status (APPROVED, NEEDS_REVISION, REJECTED)
## Examples
### Example 1: Step review
```
/nw-review @nw-software-crafter step "docs/feature/auth-upgrade/execution-log.json" step_id=02-01
```
Invokes `nw-software-crafter-reviewer` with step review of execution log, step 02-01.
### Example 2: Roadmap review
```
/nw-review @nw-solution-architect roadmap "docs/feature/auth-upgrade/roadmap.json"
```
Invokes `nw-solution-architect-reviewer` with roadmap review.
### Example 3: Implementation review
```
/nw-review @nw-platform-architect implementation "docs/feature/auth-upgrade/execution-log.json" step_id=01-01
```
Invokes `nw-platform-architect-reviewer` with implementation review of step 01-01.
### Example 4: RPP code quality review
```
/nw-review @nw-software-crafter implementation "src/des/" --dimensions=rpp --from=1 --to=3
```
Invokes `nw-software-crafter-reviewer` with implementation review + RPP L1-L3 code smell detection using cascade rule.
## Error Messages
- Invalid agent: "Unknown agent: {name}. Check available agents with /nw-agents."
- Invalid type: "Invalid artifact type: {type}. Use: baseline, roadmap, step, task, implementation."
- Missing file: "Artifact not found: {path}."
- Missing step_id: "step_id required for {type} reviews."
## Next Wave
**Handoff To**: Depends on review outcome (rework or proceed)
**Deliverables**: Updated artifact file with embedded review metadata
## Expected Outputs
```
Updated artifact file (roadmap.json, execution-log.json, etc.) with reviews section
```Related Skills
nw-tr-review-criteria
Review dimensions and scoring for root cause analysis quality assessment
nw-tdd-review-enforcement
Test design mandate enforcement, test budget validation, 5-phase TDD validation, and external validity checks for the software crafter reviewer
nw-sc-review-dimensions
Reviewer critique dimensions for peer review - implementation bias detection, test quality validation, completeness checks, and priority validation
nw-roadmap-review-checks
Roadmap-specific validation checks for architecture reviews. Load when reviewing roadmaps for implementation readiness.
nw-review-workflow
Detailed review process, v2 validation checklist, and scoring methodology for agent definition reviews
nw-review-output-format
YAML output format and approval criteria for platform design reviews. Load when generating review feedback.
nw-por-review-criteria
Review dimensions and bug patterns for journey artifact 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-pdr-review-criteria
Evidence quality validation and decision gate criteria for product discovery reviews
nw-par-review-criteria
Quality dimensions and review checklist for devop reviews
nw-dr-review-criteria
Critique dimensions, severity framework, verdict decision matrix, and review output format for documentation assessment reviews
nw-diverger-review-criteria
Review criteria for the nw-diverger-reviewer — validates JTBD rigor, research quality, option diversity, taste application correctness, and recommendation coherence in DIVERGE wave artifacts