Review dimensions for validating agent quality - template compliance, safety, testing, and priority validation
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Best practices for command definition files - size targets, declarative template, anti-patterns, and canonical examples based on research evidence
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
See how to installReview the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
forge.md at 40 lines is the reference dispatcher. Contains: header (wave, agent, overview) | Agent invocation (name + command + config) | Success criteria (checklist) | Next wave handoff | Expected outputs. Every dispatcher should aspire to this pattern.
| Category | Description | Size Target | Examples |
|---|---|---|---|
| Simple | Direct action, minimal delegation | 40-80 lines | forge, start, version, git |
| Dispatcher | Delegates to one agent with context | 40-150 lines | research, review, execute |
| Orchestrator | Coordinates multiple agents/phases | 100-300 lines | develop, document |
Commands declare WHAT, not HOW. The agent knows how to do its job.
# DW-{NAME}: {Title}
**Wave**: {WAVE_NAME}
**Agent**: {persona} ({agent-id})
## Overview
One paragraph: what this command does and when to use it.
## Context Files Required
- {path} - {why needed}
## Agent Invocation
@{agent-id}
Execute \*{command} for {parameters}.
**Context Files:**
- {files the orchestrator reads and passes}
**Configuration:**
- {key}: {value} # {comment}
## Success Criteria
- [ ] {measurable outcome}
- [ ] {quality gate}
## Next Wave
**Handoff To**: {next wave or workflow step}
**Deliverables**: {what this command produces}
# Expected outputs:
# - {file paths}
Research (Chroma Research, Anthropic context engineering): focused prompts (~300 tokens) outperform full prompts (~113k tokens) | Claude shows most pronounced performance gap | Information buried mid-prompt gets deprioritized ("Lost in the Middle") | Opus 4.6 is proactive/self-directing; verbose instructions cause overtriggering
Targets: Dispatchers 40-150 lines | Orchestrators 100-300 lines | Current average 437 lines; target under 150
Commands duplicate content in three directions, all waste tokens:
Fix: Extract shared content to preamble skill. Move domain knowledge to agents. Have orchestrators reference sub-commands.
| Anti-pattern | Impact | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Procedural overload | Step-by-step for capable agents wastes tokens, "lost in the middle" | Declare goal + constraints, let agent apply methodology |
| Duplicated briefings | Same orchestrator constraints in every command (30-80 lines each) | Extract to shared preamble, reference once |
| Embedded domain knowledge | Refactoring hierarchies, review criteria, TDD cycles in commands | Move to agent definitions or skills |
| Aggressive language | "CRITICAL/MANDATORY/MUST" causes overtriggering in Opus 4.6 | Direct statements without emphasis markers |
| Example overload | 50+ lines of JSON examples | 2-3 canonical examples suffice |
| Inline validation logic | Prompt template validation in command text | Platform/hook responsibility |
| Dead code | Deprecated formats, aspirational metrics, old signatures | Remove; version control preserves history |
| Verbose JSON state examples | 200+ lines of unused JSON | Show actual format (pipe-delimited), 3 examples max |
Contain in command (declarative):
Delegate to agent:
Rule: if content describes HOW the agent does its work, it belongs in agent definition or skill, not command.
# DW-FORGE: Create Agent (V2)
**Wave**: CROSS_WAVE
**Agent**: Zeus (nw-agent-builder)
## Overview
Create a new agent using the research-validated v2 approach.
## Agent Invocation
@nw-agent-builder
Execute \*forge to create {agent-name} agent.
**Configuration:**
- agent_type: specialist | reviewer | orchestrator
## Success Criteria
- [ ] Agent definition under 400 lines
- [ ] 11-point validation checklist passes
- [ ] 3-5 canonical examples included
## Next Wave
**Handoff To**: Agent installation and deployment
**Deliverables**: Agent specification file + Skill files
# DW-RESEARCH: Evidence-Driven Research
**Wave**: CROSS_WAVE
**Agent**: Nova (nw-researcher)
## Overview
Execute systematic evidence-based research with source verification.
## Orchestration: Trusted Source Config
Read .nwave/trusted-source-domains.yaml at orchestration time, embed inline in prompt.
## Agent Invocation
@nw-researcher
Execute \*research on {topic} [--embed-for={agent-name}].
**Configuration:**
- research_depth: detailed
- output_directory: docs/research/
## Success Criteria
- [ ] All sources from trusted domains
- [ ] Cross-reference performed (3+ sources per major claim)
- [ ] Research file created in docs/research/
## Next Wave
**Handoff To**: Invoking workflow
**Deliverables**: Research document + optional embed file
Coordinates multiple phases without embedding agent knowledge:
# DW-DOCUMENT: Documentation Creation
**Wave**: CROSS_WAVE
**Agent**: Orchestrator (self)
## Overview
Create DIVIO-compliant documentation through research and writing phases.
## Phases
1. Research phase: @nw-researcher gathers domain knowledge
2. Writing phase: @nw-documentarist creates documentation
3. Review phase: @nw-reviewer validates quality
## Phase 1: Research
@nw-researcher - Execute \*research on {topic}
[Orchestrator reads and passes relevant context files]
## Phase 2: Writing
@nw-documentarist - Create {doc-type} documentation
[Orchestrator passes research output as context]
## Phase 3: Review
@nw-reviewer - Review documentation against DIVIO standards
[Orchestrator passes documentation for review]
## Success Criteria
[Per-phase and overall criteria]
The orchestrator describes WHAT each phase does and WHO does it. The agents know HOW.
When optimizing command files for token efficiency:
Safe to compress:
| separatorsNever compress:
### Example N: section headers — keep verbatim (eval tools and agents depend on these)**Question**: lines in decision points — runtime behaviorCompression evidence: Pipe-delimited compression achieves 15-30% token reduction on prose-heavy files. Code-heavy files (PBT skills, code examples) yield <5%. Average across framework: ~7.4% overall.
Orchestrator skill loading section: Commands dispatching sub-agents must include SKILL_LOADING in the Task prompt reminding the agent to read its skills at ~/.claude/skills/nw-{skill-name}/SKILL.md. Without this, sub-agents operate without domain knowledge (the skills: frontmatter is decorative).
Since v2.8.0, commands are installed as skills, not as separate command files. The installer reads from nWave/skills/nw-{command-name}/SKILL.md, NOT from nWave/tasks/nw/{command-name}.md. The legacy tasks/nw/*.md path is still supported but is NOT auto-installed.
When creating a new command, produce THREE files:
nWave/skills/nw-{name}/SKILL.md — the installable command skill. Frontmatter MUST include:
---
name: nw-{name}
description: "One-line description for slash command menu"
user-invocable: true
argument-hint: "[args] - Example: \"example usage\""
---
Body: the full command definition (same content as the declarative template above).
nWave/tasks/nw/{name}.md — legacy task file (kept for backward compat + reference). Same content, simpler frontmatter (just description + argument-hint).
nWave/skills/nw-{name}-methodology/SKILL.md (optional) — deep methodology knowledge for the agent. Frontmatter:
---
name: nw-{name}-methodology
description: "Methodology knowledge for {name}"
user-invocable: false
disable-model-invocation: true
---
The skill file (nWave/skills/nw-{name}/SKILL.md) is the PRIMARY deliverable. Without it, the command won't appear in the /nw- menu after installation. The task file is secondary.
Also update nWave/framework-catalog.yaml with the command entry under the appropriate wave section.
No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.
No comments yet. Be the first to write one.
Review dimensions for validating agent quality - template compliance, safety, testing, and priority validation
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Review dimensions for validating agent quality - template compliance, safety, testing, and priority validation
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Review dimensions for acceptance test quality - happy path bias, GWT compliance, business language purity, coverage completeness, walking skeleton user-centricity, priority validation, observable behavior assertions, traceability coverage, and walking skeleton boundary proof
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Detailed 5-phase workflow for creating agents - from requirements analysis through validation and iterative refinement
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
5-layer testing approach for agent validation including adversarial testing, security validation, and prompt injection resistance
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Architectural style selection decision matrices, trade-off analysis, structural enforcement rules, and combination patterns. Load when choosing or evaluating architecture styles.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.