Skip to content
Back to skills

Nw Tr Review Criteria

ASecurity

Review dimensions and scoring for root cause analysis quality assessment

  • 615 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 3 views
  • Added May 27, 2026
data-airustgoaws

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned May 27, 2026

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

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Nw Tr Review Criteria?

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

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

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-tr-review-criteria
description: Review dimensions and scoring for root cause analysis quality assessment
user-invocable: false
disable-model-invocation: true
---

# Troubleshooter Review Criteria

Review dimensions and scoring for root cause analysis quality assessment.

## Dimension 1: Causality Logic

Check each WHY-to-WHY link.

Pass: logical mechanism (not just correlation) | no skipped steps | alternatives considered/eliminated | chain reads coherently both directions

Failures: correlation assumed as causation | causal chain gaps | single-path tunnel vision (first plausible cause accepted)

Severity: Critical -- wrong root cause = ineffective fixes.

## Dimension 2: Evidence Quality

Verify findings grounded in observable data.

Pass: each WHY cites specific evidence (logs, metrics, config, repro steps) | evidence verifiable by third party | timeline supports causality | hypotheses marked unverified

Failures: "Probably because..." without data | vague references ("logs show issues") | mixing facts with speculation unlabeled

Severity: High -- unreliable analysis undermines trust.

## Dimension 3: Alternative Hypotheses

Verify competing explanations explored.

Pass: 2+ alternatives at WHY 1-3 | each pursued or eliminated with evidence | "why not" reasoning documented

Failures: stops at first plausible cause | alternatives mentioned but unevaluated | confirmation bias

Severity: High -- may miss actual root cause.

## Dimension 4: Five-WHY Depth

Verify analysis reaches fundamental causes.

Pass: each branch reaches WHY 5 (or justifies stopping with evidence) | final causes are actionable | causes explain symptoms when traced forward

Failures: stopping at WHY 2-3 | WHY 5 vague/philosophical not actionable | branches abandoned

Severity: High -- shallow analysis = band-aid fixes that recur.

## Dimension 5: Completeness and Coverage

Verify all symptoms accounted for.

Pass: all symptoms have causal branch | root causes collectively explain all | no orphan symptoms | cross-cause validation (no contradictions)

Failures: symptoms ignored | root causes explain primary but not secondary | contradictory causes without reconciliation

Severity: Medium -- incomplete analysis leaves unaddressed failures.

## Dimension 6: Solution Traceability

Verify solutions map to root causes.

Pass: every root cause has solution | immediate mitigations vs permanent fixes distinguished | no orphan solutions | prevention addresses systemic factors

Failures: solutions address symptoms not causes | root cause without fix | generic recommendations untied to findings

Severity: Medium -- untraceable solutions are guesses.

## Review Output Format

```yaml
review_id: "rca_rev_{timestamp}"
reviewer: "nw-troubleshooter-reviewer"

dimensions:
  causality_logic:
    score: 0-10
    issues: [{issue, severity, recommendation}]
  evidence_quality:
    score: 0-10
    issues: [{issue, severity, recommendation}]
  alternative_hypotheses:
    score: 0-10
    issues: [{issue, severity, recommendation}]
  five_why_depth:
    score: 0-10
    issues: [{issue, severity, recommendation}]
  completeness:
    score: 0-10
    issues: [{issue, severity, recommendation}]
  solution_traceability:
    score: 0-10
    issues: [{issue, severity, recommendation}]

overall_score: "average of dimension scores"
approval_status: "approved | revisions_required"
summary: "1-2 sentence assessment"
```

## Scoring Guide

- **9-10**: Exemplary. No issues or minor style only.
- **7-8**: Good. Minor issues not affecting conclusions.
- **5-6**: Adequate. Issues weaken but don't invalidate.
- **3-4**: Poor. Issues may lead to incorrect conclusions.
- **1-2**: Failing. Fundamental flaws invalidate analysis.

**Approval threshold**: overall >= 7 and no dimension below 5.

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.