Quality dimensions and review checklist for devop reviews
Scanned 9/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add nWave-ai/nWave --skill nw-par-review-criteria --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Nw Par Review Criteria?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/nwave-ai-nw-par-review-criteria-nwave)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: nw-par-review-criteria
description: Quality dimensions and review checklist for devop reviews
user-invocable: false
disable-model-invocation: true
---
# DevOp Reviewer: Review Criteria
## Critique Dimension 1: Incomplete Phase Handoffs
**Pattern**: Phase handoffs missing required artifacts or approvals.
**Required per Phase**:
- DISCUSS: Requirements document + peer review approval
- DESIGN: Architecture document + ADRs + peer review approval
- DISTILL: Acceptance tests + peer review approval
- DELIVER: Production code + tests (100% passing) + peer review approval
**Severity**: critical. Verify all artifacts present and peer-reviewed before phase transition.
---
## Critique Dimension 2: Deployment Readiness Gaps
**Pattern**: Feature marked "ready" but missing production prerequisites.
**Required**: All tests passing (100%) | Production configuration complete | Monitoring/alerting configured | Runbook/operational docs created | Rollback plan documented.
**Severity**: critical. Complete missing prerequisite before marking deployment-ready.
---
## Critique Dimension 3: Traceability Violations
**Pattern**: Cannot trace production code back to requirements.
**Required**: User stories map to acceptance tests | Acceptance tests map to production code | Code changes traceable to commits | All AC verified in production.
**Severity**: high. Establish traceability chain: user-story -> acceptance-tests -> code-commits.
---
## Critique Dimension 4: Priority Validation
**Purpose**: Validate roadmap addresses largest bottleneck first, not secondary concern.
### Questions
**Q1: Is this the largest bottleneck?**
Does timing data show primary problem? Larger problem being ignored? Assessment: YES / NO / UNCLEAR.
**Q2: Were simpler alternatives considered?**
Roadmap includes rejected alternatives? Rejection reasons evidence-based? Simpler solution achieves 80% benefit? Assessment: ADEQUATE / INADEQUATE / MISSING.
**Q3: Is constraint prioritization correct?**
Constraints quantified by impact? Architecture addresses constraint-free opportunities first? Minority constraint dominating? (flag if >50% of solution for <30% of problem). Assessment: CORRECT / INVERTED / NOT_ANALYZED.
**Q4: Is architecture data-justified?**
Key architectural decision supported by quantitative data? Different data leads to different architecture? Assessment: JUSTIFIED / UNJUSTIFIED / NO_DATA.
### Failure Conditions
- FAIL if Q1 = NO (wrong problem being addressed)
- FAIL if Q2 = MISSING (no alternatives considered)
- FAIL if Q3 = INVERTED (minority constraint dominating)
- FAIL if Q4 = NO_DATA and this is performance optimization
---
## Critique Dimension 5: Functional Integration
**Purpose**: Verify feature wired into system entry point -- prevents Testing Theatre.
A feature with 100% test coverage but 0% wiring tests is not complete.
**Validation Criteria**:
1. **Wiring test exists**: at least one acceptance test invokes feature through driving port
2. **Component integrated**: implemented component called from entry point module
3. **Boundary correct**: acceptance tests do not import internal components directly
**Gate failure response**: Block finalization | report specific integration gap with evidence | require integration step before completion.
---
## Quality Gate Checklist
### Technical Completion
- [ ] All acceptance tests passing with stakeholder validation
- [ ] Unit test coverage meeting project standards (>=80%)
- [ ] Integration test validation of cross-component functionality
- [ ] Code review completed with approval
- [ ] Static analysis and security scan passed
- [ ] Performance tested under realistic load
### Architecture Compliance
- [ ] Implementation aligns with architectural design
- [ ] Component boundaries and interfaces respected
- [ ] Security architecture implemented correctly
### Production Readiness
- [ ] Monitoring and alerting configured
- [ ] Logging and debugging capability validated
- [ ] Rollback procedure documented and tested
- [ ] Operational runbook complete
- [ ] Support team trained / knowledge transferred
### Business Completion
- [ ] All user stories completed with acceptance criteria met
- [ ] Business rules implemented and validated
- [ ] Stakeholder acceptance obtained
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!