nw-review-workflow
Detailed review process, v2 validation checklist, and scoring methodology for agent definition reviews
Best use case
nw-review-workflow is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
Detailed review process, v2 validation checklist, and scoring methodology for agent definition reviews
Teams using nw-review-workflow 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-workflow/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How nw-review-workflow Compares
| Feature / Agent | nw-review-workflow | 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?
Detailed review process, v2 validation checklist, and scoring methodology for agent definition 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
Best AI Skills for Claude
Explore the best AI skills for Claude and Claude Code across coding, research, workflow automation, documentation, and agent operations.
Cursor vs Codex for AI Workflows
Compare Cursor and Codex for AI coding workflows, repository assistance, debugging, refactoring, and reusable developer skills.
Top AI Agents for Productivity
See the top AI agent skills for productivity, workflow automation, operational systems, documentation, and everyday task execution.
SKILL.md Source
# Agent Review Workflow ## V2 Validation Checklist (11 Points) Run against every agent under review. Each item pass/fail. 1. **Frontmatter format**: `---` delimited YAML with `name` and `description` 2. **Size compliance**: Under 400 lines; domain knowledge in Skills 3. **Divergence-only**: Only behaviors diverging from Claude defaults 4. **Calm language**: No "CRITICAL", "MANDATORY", "ABSOLUTE" 5. **Examples present**: 3-5 canonical for critical/subtle behaviors 6. **Least privilege tools**: Minimum needed in frontmatter 7. **maxTurns set**: Present in frontmatter 8. **Platform safety**: Via frontmatter/hooks, not prose 9. **Affirmative phrasing**: "Do X" not "Don't do Y" 10. **Consistent terminology**: One term per concept 11. **Clear delegation**: Description states when to delegate ## Scoring Methodology ### Per-Dimension Scoring For each of 7 critique dimensions (from critique-dimensions skill): - **Pass**: All checks satisfied - **Fail**: One or more checks not satisfied ### Verdict Logic ``` IF any high-severity dimension fails: verdict = "revisions_needed" ELIF count(medium-severity failures) >= 3: verdict = "revisions_needed" ELSE: verdict = "approved" ``` High-severity: template_compliance, size_and_focus, safety_implementation, priority_validation Medium-severity: divergence_quality, language_and_tone, examples_quality ### Evidence Requirements Every finding includes: **Dimension** (which of 7) | **Severity** (high/medium/low) | **Finding** (observed, with line numbers/counts) | **Recommendation** (specific fix action) ## Common V1 to V2 Migration Issues | Residual Pattern | What to Flag | |-----------------|-------------| | Embedded YAML config blocks | Should be frontmatter or removed | | `activation-instructions` section | Remove -- Claude Code handles activation | | `IDE-FILE-RESOLUTION` section | Remove -- not needed in v2 | | `commands` with 10+ entries | Reduce to 3-5 focused | | Inline `embed_knowledge` | Extract to Skills | | 5+ "production frameworks" | Remove -- platform handles safety | | `CRITICAL:` prefixed instructions | Rephrase as calm direct statements | | Python/YAML safety code examples | Remove -- aspirational, not executable | ## Peer Review Protocol 1. Receive agent file path from builder 2. Execute full dimension review 3. Return structured YAML verdict 4. If `revisions_needed`, include prioritized fix list 5. Builder revises and resubmits (max 2 iterations) 6. On second rejection, escalate to user ## Command Template Review Additional checks for nWave command files (tasks): - Size: 50-60 lines target; >60 warning, >150 major, >500 blocker - Structure: agent activation metadata, context files section, success criteria - Delegation: business logic belongs in agent, not command - No embedded procedural steps (STEP 1, STEP 2)
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
Dispatches an expert reviewer agent to critique workflow artifacts. Use when a roadmap, implementation, or step needs quality review before proceeding.
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