agentleFS
Luis85Luis85/agentic-workflow/.claude/skills/quality-assurance/SKILL.md

quality-assurance

Skill0 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub

Run ISO 9001-aligned QA workflow — plan, execute, review, improve via evidence-backed checklists. Triggers "quality assurance", "ISO 9001 readiness", "delivery readiness", "corrective actions".

11 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

7 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 9 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 6

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Use this skill to guide a project, portfolio, release, or feature through an ISO 9001-aligned quality assurance workflow.

    line 9
  2. Distinctive:

    Every check uses this evidence-first shape:

    line 43
  3. Distinctive:

    Plan: Create a quality plan and checklist set.

    line 61
  4. Distinctive:

    Do not claim ISO certification or external audit approval.

    line 92
  5. Distinctive:

    Do not quote long ISO text or embed copyrighted standard content.

    line 93
  6. Very specific:

    Do not hide a gap by marking it not-applicable without a rationale.

    line 94
  7. Distinctive:

    Do not close corrective actions without an effectiveness check.

    line 95

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 9 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.

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

Quality Assurance

Use this skill to guide a project, portfolio, release, or feature through an ISO 9001-aligned quality assurance workflow. The goal is to determine whether project execution is controlled enough to deliver a quality product, then turn gaps into corrective actions.

This skill supports readiness and evidence gathering. It does not certify the organization, replace an accredited auditor, or reproduce ISO standard text.

ISO baseline

As of 2026-04-28, ISO 9001:2015 remains the current published ISO 9001 requirements edition, with ISO 9001:2015/Amd 1:2024 listed by ISO and ISO/FDIS 9001 under development for a future edition. Use clause labels and the team's own evidence questions; do not copy standard text.

Reference: https://www.iso.org/standard/62085.html

Phases

PhaseCommandPrimary outputs
Start/quality:start <slug> [scope]quality/<slug>/quality-state.md
Plan/quality:plan <slug>quality-plan.md, checklists/project-execution.md
Check/quality:check <slug>Completed checklist evidence and gap statuses
Review/quality:review <slug>quality-review.md
Improve/quality:improve <slug>improvement-plan.md

Review dimensions

Tailor every checklist to the scope, but keep these dimensions visible:

  • Context and interested parties.
  • Leadership, roles, responsibilities, and quality policy alignment.
  • Planning, risks, opportunities, and quality objectives.
  • Support: resources, competence, awareness, communication, documented information.
  • Operation: requirements, design, development, controls, suppliers, release readiness.
  • Performance evaluation: monitoring, measurement, internal review, customer satisfaction, audit evidence.
  • Improvement: nonconformity, corrective action, continual improvement.

Checklist item format

Every check uses this evidence-first shape:

- [ ] QA-<AREA>-NNN — <question>
  - ISO 9001 area: <short label only>
  - Evidence required: <file, command, meeting record, approval, metric, or checklist>
  - Status: open | satisfied | gap | nonconformity | not-applicable
  - Severity: S1 | S2 | S3 | S4
  - Owner: <role/person>
  - Due: YYYY-MM-DD | n/a
  - Evidence: <links or "none yet">
  - Notes: <short rationale>

Procedure

  1. Intake gate. List inputs/ non-recursively before scoping. Surface every item via a single AskUserQuestion: "I see N items in inputs/. Which are relevant for this quality review?" Common QA inputs: prior audit reports, supplier evidence packs, customer complaints, regulator letters, certificate copies. Never auto-extract archives. Cite paths into inputs/ from quality-plan.md and checklist evidence fields. Full contract: docs/inputs-ingestion.md. Decision: ADR-0017.
  2. Start. Establish scope, product/service boundary, interested parties, applicable lifecycle/project artifacts, quality objectives, and evidence locations. Record whether this is internal readiness, supplier assurance, release readiness, or formal audit preparation.
  3. Plan. Create a quality plan and checklist set. Derive checks from scoped artifacts instead of using only generic ISO labels.
  4. Check. Execute checklist items against evidence. Run deterministic verification where available. Record gaps plainly and keep open items visible.
  5. Review. Summarize readiness, nonconformities, risks, and evidence gaps. Use ready, ready-with-conditions, not-ready, or blocked.
  6. Improve. Convert findings into corrective actions, assign owners, define effectiveness checks, and link actions into the active project/spec/release artifacts.

Severity guide

  • S1 — delivery should stop: missing product requirements, uncontrolled release, severe compliance/security/data risk, or no owner for a critical nonconformity.
  • S2 — delivery at risk unless corrected before the next gate.
  • S3 — manageable gap with an owner and follow-up date.
  • S4 — improvement opportunity or minor documentation cleanup.

Reporting

Report:

  • quality review path,
  • readiness verdict,
  • S1/S2 findings count,
  • verification commands run,
  • corrective actions opened,
  • remaining evidence gaps.

For a deterministic KPI snapshot before or during the review, use the quality-metrics skill or run:

specorator quality:metrics

Do not

  • Do not claim ISO certification or external audit approval.
  • Do not quote long ISO text or embed copyrighted standard content.
  • Do not hide a gap by marking it not-applicable without a rationale.
  • Do not close corrective actions without an effectiveness check.

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.