본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

nw-par-critique-dimensions

Platform design review critique dimensions and severity levels. Load when reviewing CI/CD pipelines, infrastructure, deployment strategies, observability, or security designs.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(1)

  • SKILL.md4.1 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Platform Design Critique Dimensions

Dimension 1: CI/CD Pipeline Completeness

Questions: All stages defined (commit, acceptance, capacity, production)? Quality gates explicit with pass/fail criteria? Parallelization used? Failure recovery/retry documented? Commit stage < 10 min, acceptance < 30 min?

Blocker: Missing critical stage (no acceptance tests) | no quality gates | no security scanning. Critical: Pipeline > 30 min without parallelization | no failure notification | missing artifact versioning. High: No caching strategy | incomplete environment parity | missing matrix testing. Medium: Inconsistent naming | missing documentation for manual steps.

Dimension 2: Infrastructure as Code Quality

Questions: Infrastructure fully codified? Modules reusable and parameterized? State management secure (encrypted, locked)? Security best practices (least privilege, encryption)? Idempotent and reproducible?

Blocker: Secrets in version control | no state management | production credentials in code. Critical: No encryption at rest | overly permissive IAM | missing network security. High: Hardcoded values | missing resource tagging | no cost estimation. Medium: Inconsistent module structure | missing input variable validation.

Dimension 3: Deployment Strategy Risk

Questions: Strategy appropriate for risk profile? Rollback documented? Health checks and readiness probes defined? Gradual traffic shifting with automatic rollback? Database migrations backward compatible?

Blocker: No rollback strategy | no health checks | breaking changes without safeguards. Critical: Single-shot deployment for critical services | no canary/blue-green for high-traffic | missing pod disruption budgets. High: Rollback not tested | no gradual traffic shifting | no pre-deployment validation. Medium: Incomplete manual step documentation | no feature flags for risky features.

Dimension 4: Observability and SLO Alignment

Questions: SLOs defined with specific targets? All four golden signals monitored? Distributed tracing configured? Alerts SLO burn-rate based? Dashboards for investigation?

Blocker: No SLOs defined | no error rate monitoring | no alerting strategy. Critical: No latency monitoring (p50/p90/p99) | symptom-based alerts | no log-metric-trace correlation. High: Incomplete metric coverage | alert thresholds misaligned with SLOs | no runbook links. Medium: Unclear dashboard organization | missing error budget tracking.

Dimension 5: Pipeline and Infrastructure Security

Questions: SAST in commit stage? DAST before production? SCA configured? Secrets management using external vault? SBOM generated and signed?

Blocker: No security scanning | secrets in env vars or code | no container image scanning. Critical: Missing SAST in CI | no dependency vulnerability scanning | missing K8s network policies. High: No DAST before production | no SBOM generation | no image signing. Medium: Security scan results not blocking deployment | no license compliance.

Dimension 6: DORA Metrics Enablement

Questions: Design enables multiple deployments/day? Lead time < 1 hour achievable? Change failure rate tracking in place? Time to restore measurable with SLOs?

Critical: Manual steps preventing daily deployments | no automated testing for fast feedback | no deployment failure tracking. High: Pipeline > 1 hour for full deployment | no post-deployment validation | missing deployment frequency metrics.

Dimension 7: Priority and Constraint Validation

Questions: Design addresses largest bottleneck first? Simpler alternatives documented and rejected with evidence? Constraint prioritization correct? Complexity justified?

Critical: Design addresses secondary concern while larger exists | no measurement data | simple alternatives not documented. High: Constraint prioritization not explicit | over-engineered for stated requirements.

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

Review dimensions for validating agent quality - template compliance, safety, testing, and priority validation

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

nWave-ai/nWave6222026년 9월 16일 업데이트

Review dimensions for validating agent quality - template compliance, safety, testing, and priority validation

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

nWave-ai/nWave6222026년 9월 16일 업데이트

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

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

nWave-ai/nWave6222026년 9월 16일 업데이트

Detailed 5-phase workflow for creating agents - from requirements analysis through validation and iterative refinement

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

nWave-ai/nWave6222026년 9월 16일 업데이트

5-layer testing approach for agent validation including adversarial testing, security validation, and prompt injection resistance

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

nWave-ai/nWave6222026년 9월 16일 업데이트

Architectural style selection decision matrices, trade-off analysis, structural enforcement rules, and combination patterns. Load when choosing or evaluating architecture styles.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

nWave-ai/nWave6222026년 9월 16일 업데이트

nWave-ai의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고