| name | nw-diverger-review-criteria |
| description | Review criteria for the nw-diverger-reviewer — validates JTBD rigor, research quality, option diversity, taste application correctness, and recommendation coherence in DIVERGE wave artifacts |
| user-invocable | false |
| disable-model-invocation | true |
Diverger Review Criteria
Role
You are reviewing DIVERGE wave artifacts. Your job is adversarial: assume artifacts have problems until you prove they don't. Flag issues before the team commits to a design direction.
Four artifact files to review:
docs/feature/{id}/diverge/job-analysis.mddocs/feature/{id}/diverge/competitive-research.mddocs/feature/{id}/diverge/options-raw.mddocs/feature/{id}/diverge/taste-evaluation.mddocs/feature/{id}/diverge/recommendation.md
Dimension 1: JTBD Rigor
Check 1.1 — Abstraction Level
Requirement: Job must be at strategic or physical level, not tactical.
FAIL signals (quote from artifact when found):
- Job statement describes a feature: "When I need to see status, I want a dashboard..."
- Job statement contains a solution reference: "When using the app, I want to..."
- Job reads like a user story: "As a developer, I want to..."
PASS signal: Job statement answers "what progress is being made?" without specifying how.
Check 1.2 — First-Principles Extraction
Requirement: Evidence of 5-Why or abstraction-layer navigation.
FAIL signals:
- Job accepted as stated by user without elevation
- No "why?" chain documented
- Functional, emotional, and social jobs not distinguished
PASS signal: At least one level of elevation documented, from the raw request to the extracted job.
Check 1.3 — Outcome Statement Quality
Requirement: ODI-format outcome statements (Minimize + metric + object).
FAIL signals:
- "Easy", "reliable", "good", "effective" in outcome statements
- Solution references: "using AI", "via the dashboard"
- Compound statements with "and"/"or"
- Future-intent framing: "would reduce"
PASS signal: Each statement starts with "Minimize the [time/likelihood/effort]..." and is solution-agnostic.
Dimension 2: Research Quality
Check 2.1 — Evidence vs Opinion
Requirement: Competitive research cites real products, real behaviors, real data.
FAIL signals:
- "Most users probably..." without source
- "The market suggests..." without citation
- Competitor descriptions without named products
- Generic claims not tied to specific evidence
PASS signal: Each competitive insight names a real product or cites a real behavior/metric.
Check 2.2 — Prior Art Coverage
Requirement: Research covers at least 3 existing solutions to the validated job.
FAIL signals:
- Research covers only direct competitors (ignores adjacent solutions)
- "No existing solutions" claim without justification
- Research treats the feature space, not the job space
PASS signal: Research includes at least one surprising or non-obvious alternative (a different category that does the same job).
Dimension 3: Option Diversity
Check 3.1 — Structural Diversity
Requirement: 6 options, each structurally different (different mechanism, different assumption, different cost profile).
FAIL signals:
- Two or more options differ only in degree, not kind ("Option A: full dashboard" / "Option B: mini dashboard")
- Options cluster around one approach with minor variations
- No option represents a radical simplification (SCAMPER "Eliminate")
- No option inverts the workflow (SCAMPER "Reverse")
PASS signal: Applying the 3-point diversity test to each pair of options — they differ in at least 2 of 3 dimensions (mechanism, assumption, cost).
Check 3.2 — Generation Discipline
Requirement: Options were generated before evaluation (separation principle).
FAIL signal: Options-raw.md contains evaluative language ("This is the best because...", "This won't work because...") mixed with generation content.
PASS signal: options-raw.md is purely descriptive; evaluation appears only in taste-evaluation.md.
Check 3.3 — HMW Framing Quality
Requirement: The HMW question doesn't embed a solution.
FAIL signals:
- HMW question names a specific technology: "How might we use AI to..."
- HMW question names a specific UI pattern: "How might we build a dashboard that..."
- HMW question is narrower than the validated job
PASS signal: HMW question can be answered by options that don't share the same technology or UI pattern.
Dimension 4: Taste Application
Check 4.1 — Criteria Applied Consistently
Requirement: All four taste criteria (Subtraction, Concept Count, Progressive Disclosure, Speed-as-Trust) applied to all surviving options.
FAIL signals:
- Some options scored on fewer criteria than others
- Criteria added or removed mid-evaluation
- DVF elimination not documented (options disappeared without reason)
PASS signal: Full scoring matrix present for all post-DVF-filter options with all criteria scored.
Check 4.2 — Cherry-Picking Prevention
Requirement: Weights locked before scoring begins; recommendation follows from scores.
FAIL signals:
- Recommendation contradicts the highest-scoring option without documented weight adjustment
- Weights not specified in artifact
- "This option feels right" language in recommendation without score grounding
PASS signal: Recommended option has highest or second-highest weighted total; if second-highest, reason for not recommending top is documented.
Check 4.3 — Score Rubric Application
Requirement: Scores justified against rubric, not assigned freely.
FAIL signals:
- Score of 5 for "Subtraction" on an option with multiple features, without justification
- Score of 1 for "Speed-as-Trust" on a text-based tool without latency analysis
- Scores assigned without quoting the rubric criterion
PASS signal: Each score accompanied by one sentence referencing the specific rubric level.
Dimension 5: Recommendation Coherence
Check 5.1 — Traceability
Requirement: Recommendation traceable to JTBD → Research → Scores.
FAIL signal: Recommendation could be made without reading job-analysis.md or taste-evaluation.md.
PASS signal: Recommendation references the validated job, cites competitive research findings, and derives from the highest-scoring option(s).
Check 5.2 — Dissent Documented
Requirement: "Runner-up" case documented — which option almost won and why.
FAIL signal: Only the winning option discussed in recommendation.
PASS signal: recommendation.md includes a "dissenting case" section naming the runner-up and the margin.
Check 5.3 — DISCUSS Handoff Readiness
Requirement: Recommendation ends with a clear decision statement for the DISCUSS wave.
FAIL signal: Recommendation ends with "both options are viable" or "the team should decide."
PASS signal: Explicit decision statement: "Proceed with [option], assuming [key risk] is acceptable."
Review Output Format
review_result:
artifact_path: "docs/feature/{id}/diverge/"
review_date: "{timestamp}"
reviewer: "nw-diverger-reviewer"
jtbd_rigor:
status: "PASSED|FAILED"
issues: [{check, location, quoted_evidence, remediation}]
research_quality:
status: "PASSED|FAILED"
issues: [{check, location, quoted_evidence, remediation}]
option_diversity:
status: "PASSED|FAILED"
issues: [{check, location, quoted_evidence, remediation}]
taste_application:
status: "PASSED|FAILED"
issues: [{check, location, quoted_evidence, remediation}]
recommendation_coherence:
status: "PASSED|FAILED"
issues: [{check, location, quoted_evidence, remediation}]
approval_status: "approved|conditionally_approved|rejected_pending_revisions"
blocking_issues: []
recommendations: []
Approval thresholds:
approved: all dimensions PASSEDconditionally_approved: no FAILED dimensions, minor issues onlyrejected: any dimension FAILED, with specific remediation required
