Skip to content
Back to skills

Nw Review

ASecurity

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

  • 615 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 2 views
  • Added May 27, 2026
data-aigosecurity

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned May 27, 2026

npx -y skills add nWave-ai/nWave --skill nw-review --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Nw Review?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Nw Review
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/nwave-ai-nw-review/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/nwave-ai-nw-review)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: nw-review
description: "Dispatches an expert reviewer agent to critique workflow artifacts. Use when a roadmap, implementation, or step needs quality review before proceeding."
user-invocable: true
argument-hint: '[agent] [artifact-type] [artifact-path] - Example: @software-crafter task "roadmap.json"'
---

# 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
```

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.