quality-gate
Skill1 starsChanged 53 days agoMITView on GitHub
Evaluate a Component or task against its Definition of Done with checks scaled to LIGHTWEIGHT, STANDARD, or STRICT. Use after implementation and current validation evidence exist, before marking work DONE or a Component STABLE.
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
- Felpix-Studios/social-science-research★ 8same name
- BerryKuipers/claude-code-toolkit★ 7same name
- freskhu/genesis★ 5same name
- unlockers-ai/unlockers-skills-library★ 4same 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 repository21 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- adaptive-testingSkill
- architecture-decisionSkill
- artifact-validationSkill
- change-impactSkill
- clarification-gateSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- component-planningSkill
- failure-diagnosisSkill
- failure-escalationSkill
- framework-checkpointSkill
- framework-resumeSkill
- gap-analysisSkill
- implement-componentSkill
- integration-gateSkill
- minimum-pathSkill
- project-intakeSkill
- reverse-engineeringSkill
- stage-gateSkill
- traceabilitySkill
- workflow-assessmentSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 34 edited versions we read keep these.
5
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
- Distinctive: line 14
Run after implementation, build, testing, and required review.
- Distinctive: line 25
All evidence names the exact evaluated revision and scope.
- Distinctive: line 36
Add checks demanded by actual impact even if the selected level baseline is lighter.
- Distinctive: line 37
Verify every mandatory DoD item and accepted-risk authority.
- Distinctive: line 64
Use Failure Diagnosis before repeated correction.
- Very specific: line 68
Stop after a recorded verdict.
“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
Purpose
Issue an evidence-based Component Quality Gate verdict appropriate to the effective Task Workflow Level.
Trigger
Run after implementation, build, testing, and required review; rerun whenever relevant code, Contract, dependencies, tests, or accepted criteria change.
Inputs
- Component/task revision, Contract/design, Requirements, acceptance criteria, and DoD.
- Task Workflow Level and mandatory Project Constraints.
- Build, static check, test, review, traceability, security, and performance evidence.
- Known failures, risks, assumptions, waivers, and deviations.
Prerequisites
- All evidence names the exact evaluated revision and scope.
- The implementation author cannot substitute self-assertion for required independent review.
Procedure
- Confirm scope, revision, DoD, Workflow Level, and mandatory checks.
- Reject stale or mismatched evidence.
- Apply level-specific baseline:
LIGHTWEIGHT: build/equivalent check, relevant tests, focused regression, acceptance criteria, and Quick Review.STANDARD: build, static checks, unit/module tests, regression, Code Review, and acceptance criteria.STRICT: build, static analysis, unit/Contract/integration/regression tests, security/performance checks as applicable, independent reviews, architecture compliance, traceability, and acceptance evidence.
- Add checks demanded by actual impact even if the selected level baseline is lighter.
- Verify every mandatory DoD item and accepted-risk authority.
- Record evidence, failures, residual risks, exclusions, and verdict.
- On PASS, mark the evaluated Component revision
STABLE; on failure retainUNVERIFIEDor setFAILED.
Decision Rules
- Verdict is
PASS,FAIL,BLOCKED, orUSER_DECISION_REQUIRED. - PASS requires current evidence for every mandatory item; partial success is not PASS.
- A waiver is a persisted risk Decision, not fabricated evidence.
- Security-sensitive or Contract/API changes may require Strict checks in an otherwise Lightweight task.
- Any post-review code change invalidates affected test and review evidence.
Outputs
- Gate Record with scope, revisions, level, checks, evidence, verdict, findings, residual risks, and next action.
- Updated Component/task state.
- Required repair, revalidation, clarification, or integration readiness.
Failure Cases
- Evidence references another revision or environment.
- Required checks are unavailable or inconclusive.
- DoD conflicts with Project Constraints.
- Risk acceptance lacks an authorized owner.
Escalation
Use Failure Diagnosis before repeated correction. Use Clarification Gate for waivers/authority and Failure Escalation for repeated or cross-layer failure. Roll back to the responsible design/Requirement layer when evidence points upstream.
Stop Conditions
Stop after a recorded verdict. Do not integrate unless the exact Component revision is STABLE; do not continue because implementation merely exists.
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.

