Nw pdr review criteria
Skill nWave-ai/nWave/plugins/nw/skills/nw-pdr-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-pdr-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
Evidence quality validation and decision gate criteria for product discovery reviews
SKILL.md
5.3 KB, ~1.2k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
Review Criteria -- Product Discovery Review
Evidence Quality Validation
Past Behavior Indicators (Good)
"Tell me about the last time..." | "When did you last..." | "What happened when..." | "Walk me through how you..." | "What did you try..." | "How much have you spent on..." Specific dates, dollar amounts, named tools, concrete examples, emotional frustration language
Future Intent Red Flags (Reject)
"Would you use/pay/like..." | "Do you think..." | "Imagine if..." | "What if we..." Flag and reject if >20% of evidence is future-intent.
Validation Thresholds
- Past behavior ratio: >80% (reject if fail, require re-interview)
- Specific examples: min 3 concrete per finding (warn if fail)
- Customer language: quotes in customer words, not paraphrased (warn if fail)
Sample Size Minimums
| Phase | Minimum | High Confidence | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1: Problem | 5 | 10 | Interviews required |
| 2: Opportunity | 10 | 20 | Quantitative supplements, not replaces |
| 3: Solution | 5 per iteration | 3 iterations max | Before decision |
| 4: Viability | 5 | -- | Stakeholder review required |
Pivot decision rule: min 5 consistent signals. Block decisions on fewer.
Decision Gate Criteria
G1: Problem to Opportunity
Proceed: 5+ confirm pain + willingness to pay | Pivot: differs from expected | Kill: <20% confirm Checks: 5+ interviews, >60% confirmation, customer words, 3+ examples
G2: Opportunity to Solution
Proceed: top 2-3 score >8 (0-20) | Pivot: new opportunities | Kill: all low-value Checks: OST complete with 5+, scores correct (Importance + Max(0, Importance - Satisfaction)), top >8/20
G3: Solution to Viability
Proceed: >80% task completion, usability validated | Pivot: needs refinement | Kill: fundamental blocks Checks: 5+ users/iteration, >80% completion, core flow usable, value validated
G4: Viability to Build
Proceed: 4 risks addressed, model validated | Pivot: adjustment needed | Kill: no viable model Checks: Lean Canvas complete, all risks green/yellow, stakeholder sign-off
Bias Types
Confirmation Bias (critical)
Signals: only positive quotes | skeptics not interviewed | disconfirming evidence dismissed | same questions for "right" answers Fix: include skeptics, actively seek disconfirming evidence
Selection Bias (high)
Signals: all existing customers | no churned/non-adopters | lacks diversity | single-enthusiast referral chain Fix: random/diverse selection, include skeptics and non-users
Discovery Theater (critical)
Signals: conclusion decided before research | findings match hypothesis perfectly | no surprises | idea-in = idea-shipped Fix: track idea evolution, expect 50%+ ideas to change
Sample Size Problem (high)
Signals: major decisions on 2-3 interviews | single quote as "validation" | pivot on one signal Fix: min 5 interviews per segment, 5+ signals for decisions
Anti-Patterns
Interview Anti-Patterns
| Pattern | Detection | Bad | Good | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leading questions | Suggests desired answer | "Don't you think this would save time?" | "Tell me about the last time you tried to save time on this" | high |
| Future-intent | Hypothetical behavior | "Would you use this feature?" | "What have you tried to solve this problem?" | critical |
| Compliments as validation | Accepting "that's cool" | "They loved the idea!" | "They committed to follow-up and referral" | high |
| Talking > listening | >30% interviewer talk | Long questions, short responses | Open questions, extended answers | medium |
Process Anti-Patterns
| Pattern | Detection | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| Skipping to solutions | Solution before problem validated | critical |
| Demographic segmentation | Segments by demographics not jobs | medium |
| Building before testing | Code before Phase 3 | critical |
Strategic Anti-Patterns
| Pattern | Detection | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| Premature pivoting | Direction change on 1-2 signals (need 5+) | high |
| Solution love | Defending despite evidence, dismissing critics | high |
| Sole source of truth | Only quant OR qual, not both | medium |
Pre-Approval Checklist
Evidence Quality
- Past behavior ratio >80% | [ ] No critical future-intent | [ ] Customer language preserved
Sample Sizes
- Phase 1: 5+ | [ ] Phase 2: 10+ | [ ] Phase 3: 5+/iteration | [ ] Phase 4: 5+ with stakeholders
Decision Gates
- All gates properly evaluated | [ ] Criteria documented with evidence | [ ] Decision justified
Bias Check
- No confirmation bias | [ ] No selection bias | [ ] No discovery theater | [ ] Sample size adequate
Anti-Patterns
- No critical interview anti-patterns | [ ] No critical process anti-patterns | [ ] No critical strategic anti-patterns
Approval Decision
- Approved: all checks pass, no critical issues. Formal handoff to product-owner.
- Conditionally approved: minor issues only (no critical/high). Approval with recommendations.
- Rejected: any critical/high issue. Structured rejection with remediation. Blocks handoff.