nWave/skills/nw-command-design-patterns/SKILL.md
Best practices for command definition files - size targets, declarative template, anti-patterns, and canonical examples based on research evidence
npx skillsauth add nwave-ai/nwave nw-command-design-patternsInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
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.
testing
Acceptance test creation methodology for the DISTILL wave. Domain knowledge for the acceptance designer agent: port-to-port principle, prior wave reading, wave-decision reconciliation, graceful degradation, and document back-propagation.
testing
Methodology for minimizing test count while maximizing behavioral coverage - behavior definition, anti-pattern catalog, consolidation patterns, stopping criterion, coverage-preserving validation
testing
Methodology for minimizing test count while maximizing behavioral coverage - behavior definition, anti-pattern catalog, consolidation patterns, stopping criterion, coverage-preserving validation
development
Design mandates for acceptance tests - hexagonal boundary, business language abstraction, user journey completeness, pure function extraction, 3 Pillars (domain language / chained narrative / production composition), and the layered ATD discipline (Universe-bound assertion, layer-dependent PBT mode, two-tier acceptance, example-based sad paths)