Platform Design Critique Dimensions
SkillCloud & infraPlatform design review critique dimensions and severity levels. Load when reviewing CI/CD pipelines, infrastructure, deployment strategies, observability, or security designs.
Available today. Use it from your connected AI after setup.
No other account needed.
Connect ahel once, and every AI you use reads what you have installed.
Then ask your AI: use the Platform Design Critique Dimensions skill
What this skill tells your AI
The instructions your AI receives, as published by nwave-ai/nwave in nWave/skills/nw-par-critique-dimensions/SKILL.md and read by ahel’s review.
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.
Signals
- GitHub stars
- 610
- Forks
- 63
- Last commit
- Sep 2026
Advanced
- Catalog kind
- skill
- Gateway key
nw-par-critique-dimensions- Source
- github.com/nwave-ai/nwave