quality-review
Skill0 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when reviewing a ticket diff for correctness, regressions, architecture, security, and maintainability.
8 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Gamehu/reinstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- shawnclybor/clybor-claude-toolingtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- TerryFYL/ai-research-armytheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- calven-ai/calven-mcptheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- PicsArt/gen-ai-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- simota/quality-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 19, 2026
Other versions8 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 8
- TerryFYL/ai-research-army★ 9same name
- PicsArt/gen-ai-skills★ 6same name
- shawnclybor/clybor-claude-tooling★ 6same name
- calven-ai/calven-mcp★ 3same name
- gener8v/gener8v.claude-skills★ 3same name
- simota/quality-skills★ 2same name
- Gamehu/reins★ 0same name
- kaiohenricunha/dotbabel★ 0same name
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 repository17 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- templates/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- branch-safelySkill
- deployment-decisionsSkill
- deploySkill
- deploy-vercelSkill
- deploy-vpsSkill
- documentationSkill
- e2e-testingSkill
- feature-testingSkill
- monitoringSkill
- orchestrateSkill
- requirements-gatheringSkill
- solution-designSkill
- task-breakdownSkill
- ui-uxSkill
- unit-testingSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 6 edited versions we read keep these.
1
Distinctive
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
- Distinctive: line 18
Write actionable findings with severity and location in the diff.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 6 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 Review
Review in three sequential phases. Do not skip a phase.
Phase 1 — Run tests. Execute unit, feature, and end-to-end tests. Record exact commands and output. Confirm acceptance criteria are verified. If a test level is not applicable, state why.
Phase 2 — Inspect the diff. Focus on correctness (does the code do what the ticket requires?), security (are inputs handled safely?), and scope (did the developer stay within the ticket?). Do not review for subjective style or naming preferences.
Risk-triggered evidence: Require evidence only when triggered. Security triggers are authentication, authorization, sessions, secrets/credentials, payments, sensitive personal data, security controls, or an untrusted-input/external-data boundary. Accessibility triggers are a user-facing interface, navigation, form, or interactive control. Performance triggers are a hot path, database query pattern, N+1 query risk, response-time budget, large data set processing, memory allocation, bundle size, or caching behavior. Record the trigger, change-specific checks, results, and remaining risk: security covers the relevant boundary, access control, data exposure, and safe handling; accessibility covers keyboard path, semantic/accessible name, focus behavior, and visual readability; performance covers the affected path, measured or estimated cost, and whether the change stays within the existing budget. Missing triggered evidence or an unresolved issue is blocking and requires REQUEST CHANGES; non-triggered changes require no evidence. This is not a scanner, formal compliance assessment, or a reliability or architecture review.
Phase 3 — Write artifacts and decide. Classify findings as blocking (must fix) or advisory (should fix). Write qa-report.md, review.md, and local-test.md. Outcome is APPROVE only if no blocking findings exist.
Write actionable findings with severity and location in the diff. Return concise evidence to the orchestrator; keep detailed findings in the review artifact and never claim checks that were not run.
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.