quality-gate
Skill8 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Verify every quantitative claim in the paper traces to an analysis output file, and no important output was omitted. Use when checking the paper matches the analysis before submission.
42 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- jodyjdc/ultimate-best-seller-studiotheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- unlockers-ai/unlockers-skills-librarytheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- TerryFYL/ai-research-armytheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Romandredan/1c-quality-gatetheir own version, first seen Nov 4, 2026
- shimo4228/zenn-contenttheir own version, first seen Nov 2, 2026
- matheuskotayko/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use deploy.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
VercelSkilldeploy
Deploy applications to Vercel. Use when the user says "deploy", "deploy to Vercel", "push to production", "deploy my app", or "go live".
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions42 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 42
- RapierCraftStudios/ForgeDock★ 119same name
- microsoft/webui★ 100same name
- impecablemee/gtm-mcp★ 66same name
- microsoft/devsquad-copilot★ 50same name
- Romandredan/1c-quality-gate★ 49same name
- TerryFYL/ai-research-army★ 9same name
- BerryKuipers/claude-code-toolkit★ 7same name
- freskhu/genesis★ 5same name
- unlockers-ai/unlockers-skills-library★ 4same name
- hahuyhungdev/ai-coding-config★ 3same name
32 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository12 other files it gives its agents.
- data-analysisSkill
- data-finderSkill
- lit-reviewSkill
- new-projectSkill
- proofreadSkill
- research-setupSkill
- review-paperSkill
- review-rSkill
- revise-paperSkill
- session-logSkill
- validate-bibSkill
- write-paperSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 34 edited versions we read keep these.
4
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 15
Read ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/rules/quality-gates.md before assigning the final verdict and severity.
- Very specific: line 20
If $ARGUMENTS is provided, use that path.
- Distinctive: line 25
If multiple drafts found, use AskUserQuestion to let the user pick:
- Distinctive: line 33
Read the full manuscript and extract every quantitative claim:
- Distinctive: line 80
After the verifier completes, collect its results:
- Distinctive: line 142
Report only — never edit: All fixes are the user's responsibility after reviewing the report.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 34 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Quality Gate: Paper ↔ Analysis Consistency
Cross-check every numerical claim in the paper against analysis output files. Reports only — never edits.
Input: $ARGUMENTS — path to the paper draft, or leave blank to auto-detect.
Read ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/rules/quality-gates.md before assigning the final verdict and severity.
Step 1: Locate the Paper Draft
If $ARGUMENTS is provided, use that path. Otherwise glob for:
manuscripts/**/*.texmanuscripts/**/*.qmdmanuscripts/**/*.md
If multiple drafts found, use AskUserQuestion to let the user pick:
- header: "Paper"
- question: "Multiple drafts found. Which manuscript should I check?"
- options: list up to 4 found files (label: filename, description: path and file size). If more than 4, group by directory.
Step 2: Extract Numerical Claims
Read the full manuscript and extract every quantitative claim:
- Coefficients and standard errors — e.g., "The effect is 0.23 (SE = 0.04)"
- Sample sizes — e.g., "N = 4,521 observations"
- Percentages and proportions — e.g., "42% of firms..."
- Means, medians, ranges — e.g., "average income of $45,000"
- Table and figure references — e.g., "Table 2 shows...", "as seen in Figure 1"
- p-values and significance statements — e.g., "statistically significant at the 1% level"
Record location (section, paragraph, line number if available) for each claim.
Step 3: Inventory Output Files
Glob for all output files:
output/tables/**/*.tex— regression and summary tablesoutput/tables/**/*.html— HTML versionsoutput/figures/**/*.pdf,output/figures/**/*.png— figuresoutput/**/*.rds,output/**/*.pkl,output/**/*.parquet,output/**/*.csv— saved objects
Build an inventory with file paths and sizes.
Step 4: Dispatch Verifier Agent
Dispatch the verifier agent via Task to perform the heavy verification work. Pass it:
- The full list of numerical claims extracted in Step 2 (with locations)
- The output file inventory from Step 3
- The paper draft path
- The bibliography file path
Task prompt: "You are the verifier agent. Paper draft: [path].
Bibliography: [bib path].
CLAIMS TO VERIFY:
[paste the full claims list from Step 2]
OUTPUT FILE INVENTORY:
[paste the inventory from Step 3]
Verify each claim against the output files. Then do a reverse check —
find output files NOT referenced in the paper. Then check all citation
keys against the bibliography. Follow the verifier agent instructions
and return your full verification report."After the verifier completes, collect its results:
- Claim verification table (MATCHED / UNVERIFIED / MISSING FILE per claim)
- Unreferenced output files list
- Missing citation keys
Step 5: Save Report
Save to quality_reports/quality_gate_[YYYY-MM-DD]_[paper-name].md:
# Quality Gate Report: [Paper Name]
**Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Paper:** [file path]
## Verdict: PASS / CONDITIONAL PASS / FAIL
PASS = all claims matched, no missing citations, no unexplained unreferenced outputs
CONDITIONAL PASS = minor unverified claims or informational unreferenced outputs
FAIL = unverified critical claims or missing citations
## Claim Verification
| Claim | Location | Found in Output? | Source File | Status |
|-------|----------|-----------------|-------------|--------|
| β = 0.23 (SE = 0.04) | Section 4, para 2 | Yes | output/tables/main_regs.tex | MATCHED |
| N = 4,521 | Table 2 note | Yes | output/tables/main_regs.tex | MATCHED |
| 42% of firms | Intro, para 1 | No | — | UNVERIFIED |
## Unreferenced Outputs
Files in output/ not referenced in the paper:
| File | Size | Recommended Action |
|------|------|-------------------|
| output/tables/robustness_het.tex | 4.2 KB | Reference in Section 7 or explain exclusion |
## Missing Citations
| Key | Used At | Status |
|-----|---------|--------|
| SmithJones2021 | Section 3, para 1 | NOT IN BIBLIOGRAPHY — CRITICAL |
## Summary
- Claims verified: N / M total
- Claims unverified: K (see table above)
- Unreferenced outputs: J
- Missing citations: L
## Recommended Actions (Priority Order)
1. [BLOCKING] ...
2. [RECOMMENDED] ...Key Rules
- Report only — never edit. All fixes are the user's responsibility after reviewing the report.
- Tolerance: For inline numbers, a claim is MATCHED if the value appears in any output file within reasonable display rounding (±0.005 for 2-decimal numbers).
- False positives are OK. Flag uncertainties as UNVERIFIED rather than guessing MATCHED.
- Missing files are always BLOCKING — a figure reference pointing to a non-existent file is a FAIL.
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
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.

