agentleFS
kriegcloudkriegcloud/beep-effect/.claude/skills/quality-review-fix-loop/SKILL.md

quality-review-fix-loop

Skill78 starsChanged 7 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Close an initiative with a quality loop: green baseline commit, read-only reviewer panel, fixer-agent routing, waivers, zero required blockers. Use when asked to run repo quality, fix all warnings/errors, close an initiative, or loop reviewers/fixers until no required findings remain.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

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

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈6

    Distinctive · estimate

    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 near the end of a repository initiative.

    line 15
  2. Very specific:

    Run from repo_root. Baseline:

    line 64
  3. Distinctive:

    Use the current checkout as truth for commands and package surfaces.

    line 82
  4. Distinctive:

    Keep scope tied to this initiative.

    line 83
  5. Distinctive:

    Prefer focused fixes; add abstractions only when they remove real duplication or match an established local pattern.

    line 89
  6. Distinctive:

    Phase 1 — Baseline quality and commit: Run the baseline commands, fix every relevant failure or warning, rerun until green, then make a …

    line 103
  7. Distinctive:

    Do not say the repository is ready if required blockers remain without waiver or baseline quality is red.

    line 137

≈ “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 Review Fix Loop

Use near the end of a repository initiative. The goal is not endless polishing; it is a green, committed, review-ready repo state with zero required blockers in the chosen scope.

Template Header

Fill or infer before starting:

  • repo_root: git rev-parse --show-toplevel
  • initiative_summary: one paragraph on the initiative being closed
  • base_ref: origin/main unless the user says otherwise
  • review_scope: changed files plus directly affected public APIs, package boundaries, docs, tests, generated configs, and manifests
  • zero_gate: zero required blocker findings from the reviewer panel
  • loop_budget: 3 reviewer/fixer rounds before escalating
  • commit_policy: green baseline commit before loops; local follow-up commits for fixes; no push/PR unless explicitly asked
  • waiver_policy: a required blocker may remain only with an explicit waiver record (see references/templates.md)
  • publish_policy: local commits only unless the user explicitly asks to push, open a PR, or touch GitHub review threads

beep-effect Defaults

For non-beep-effect repos, replace this section with local equivalents.

Source of truth — read what is relevant to the changed surface before reviewing; never review from generic taste:

  • root and package-local AGENTS.md
  • standards/ARCHITECTURE.md plus the numbered doctrine index under standards/architecture/ (00-15; README.md covers posture and drift buckets)
  • standards/effect-laws-v1.md, standards/effect-first-development.md
  • .patterns/jsdoc-documentation.md
  • inventories/allowlists: standards/schema-first.inventory.jsonc, standards/jsdoc-documentation.inventory.md, standards/effect-laws.allowlist.jsonc
  • package READMEs; packages/architecture-lab/* and apps/architecture-lab-proof/test/ as executable proof

Architecture docs are target doctrine. Classify code/doctrine disagreements as target-doctrine-violation | transitional-compatibility | cleanup-on-touch | forbidden-in-new-work | pending-automation | missing-doctrine. Repo-wide inventories are context, not automatic blockers: blockers only when this initiative touched, worsened, or depended on them.

Quality Commands

Run from repo_root. Baseline:

bun run lint:fix
bun run audit:github quality

Portable fallback when a repo has no all-up quality script: bun run lint:fix, check, build, test, audit, lint. In beep-effect, bun run audit:github quality covers build, check, lint, docgen generate/aggregate, test, repo sanity, and changeset status; ensure the local docgen lane is included for docs/export changes. Warnings and policy diagnostics are actionable — do not call the baseline green while relevant warnings remain.

Operating Rules

  • Inspect the worktree first; never revert unrelated user changes.
  • Use the current checkout as truth for commands and package surfaces.
  • Keep scope tied to this initiative; historical repo-wide debt is not a blocker unless the initiative touched it or made it worse.
  • Reviewer/critic agents are read-only: inspect, run non-mutating commands, report. They must not edit.
  • Fixer agents edit only their assigned write surface and are told other agents share the codebase.
  • Prefer focused fixes; add abstractions only when they remove real duplication or match an established local pattern.
  • Evidence beats vibes: a blocker needs concrete evidence and a concrete unblock action. Optional improvements go to backlog unless they protect correctness, doctrine, release safety, or maintainability in changed scope.

Phases

Phase 0 — Grounding. Confirm repo_root, branch, dirty worktree, base_ref. Capture the changed surface (git status --short, git diff --name-status {{base_ref}}...HEAD, --stat). Summarize the initiative in 3-6 bullets (intent, surfaces touched, public changes, risks, known unrelated dirty files). Read the relevant source-of-truth docs.

Phase 1 — Baseline quality and commit. Run the baseline commands, fix every relevant failure or warning, rerun until green, then make a local Conventional Commit. Record SHA, commands run, out-of-scope failures verified, and remaining pre-existing inventory debt. Do not start reviewer loops before a green committed baseline (unless the user changes commit policy).

Phase 2 — Read-only reviewer panel. Launch the 10 reviewer roles in references/reviewer-roles.md in parallel where possible, each given the initiative summary, base commit, changed surface, source-of-truth list, and the inventory item format from references/templates.md. Reviewers stay read-only, cite standards and file/command evidence, classify findings (blocking | non-blocking | question | note), separate changed-scope blockers from historical debt, and return 0 required findings when clean.

Phase 3 — Triage and fixer routing. Merge reviewer output into one inventory: dedupe; reject findings without evidence or an actionable fix; reclassify out-of-scope historical debt as backlog; group blocking findings by write surface (source package, docs/standards, tests, generated config/metadata, tooling); assign fixers only to non-overlapping groups using the fixer prompt template in references/templates.md.

Phase 4 — Verification round. Review each patch, resolve conflicts while preserving unrelated changes, run item-level acceptance commands, rerun the baseline, commit (Conventional Commit), then relaunch the reviewer panel on the new commit. Repeat Phases 2-4 until zero required blockers, every remaining blocker has a waiver record, or loop_budget is exhausted — then stop and report remaining blockers, why, options, and a recommended action.

References

  • references/reviewer-roles.md — the 10 reviewer roles and reviewer contract
  • references/templates.md — inventory item format, severity calibration, fixer prompt, waiver/backlog records, final response format

Do not say the repository is ready if required blockers remain without waiver or baseline quality is red.

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.