Nw tr review criteria
AI agents that guide you from idea to working code, with you in control at every step.
npx -y skills add nWave-ai/nWave --skill nw-tr-review-criteriaAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Review dimensions and scoring for root cause analysis quality assessment
SKILL.md
3.7 KB, 780 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
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
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.