agentleFS
45ck45ck/software-quality-skills/.agents/skills/quality-attribute-model-builder/SKILL.md

quality-attribute-model-builder

Skill3 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

9 rules. About 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈9

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Do not make strong quality claims without evidence or confidence notes.

    line 39
  2. Distinctive:

    Prefer actionable findings tied to consequence over generic “improve quality” advice.

    line 41
  3. Distinctive:

    Keep the artifact compact, structured, and reusable.

    line 42
  4. Distinctive:

    Prefer structured findings over narrative filler.

    line 51
  5. Distinctive:

    Use severity, priority, or confidence labels when useful.

    line 53
  6. Distinctive:

    Do not confuse stakeholder optimism with evidence.

    line 56
  7. Distinctive:

    Do not collapse all quality concerns into one generic score.

    line 57
  8. Distinctive:

    Do not hide missing telemetry, weak tests, or process gaps.

    line 58
  9. Distinctive:

    Do not recommend vague actions with no owner or consequence path.

    line 59

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

quality-attribute-model-builder

Purpose

Define a project-specific software quality model with explicit attributes, subattributes, rationale, and evaluation intent.

Trigger this skill when

  • You need a focused software-quality analysis or artifact rather than a broad generic review.
  • Quality claims, tradeoffs, or risks are currently vague or implicit.
  • You need a reusable output another reviewer, developer, or agent can extend safely.

Expected inputs

  • system or component context
  • quality goals or stakeholder expectations
  • available evidence
  • constraints and known risks

Deliverables

  • structured findings
  • quality-focused artifact
  • assumptions and evidence gaps
  • recommended next skill

Operating procedure

  1. Clarify which quality concern is in scope and why it matters to the system or stakeholder.
  2. Separate explicit evidence from assumptions, missing data, or inference.
  3. Convert vague quality language into concrete attributes, criteria, or review findings.
  4. Produce a compact artifact that supports decision-making, follow-up analysis, or governance.
  5. Recommend the next most useful quality, verification, or remediation step.

Quality gates

  • Do not make strong quality claims without evidence or confidence notes.
  • Make tradeoffs, assumptions, and blind spots explicit.
  • Prefer actionable findings tied to consequence over generic “improve quality” advice.
  • Keep the artifact compact, structured, and reusable.

Handoff targets

  • quality-weighting-reviewer
  • quality-goal-scorer
  • quality-risk-register-builder

Output style

  • Be explicit about evidence quality and uncertainty.
  • Prefer structured findings over narrative filler.
  • Tie recommendations to quality impact, operational consequence, or change cost.
  • Use severity, priority, or confidence labels when useful.

Failure modes to avoid

  • Do not confuse stakeholder optimism with evidence.
  • Do not collapse all quality concerns into one generic score.
  • Do not hide missing telemetry, weak tests, or process gaps.
  • Do not recommend vague actions with no owner or consequence path.

Minimum output skeleton

## Summary
## Findings
## Structured outputs
## Evidence / confidence
## Assumptions
## Open questions
## Recommended next skill

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.