agentleFS
Sign inStart free
proffesor-for-testingproffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe/.agents/skills/aqe-review-quality/SKILL.md

aqe-review-quality

Skill515 starsChanged 22 days agoMITView on GitHub

Review Agentic QE changes and issue an evidence-backed quality verdict. Use for code review, regression-risk assessment, release readiness, quality-gate evaluation, security/performance/testability review, or checking whether a change has sufficient verification. Do not use when the user primarily asks to implement a feature.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈4

    Distinctive · estimate

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Read AGENTS.md, the diff or requested scope, affected implementation, tests, and configuration.

    line 8
  2. Distinctive:

    Use references/quality-gates.md to select relevant QE review lenses.

    line 12
  3. Distinctive:

    Verify claims with focused commands where safe and available.

    line 14
  4. Distinctive:

    Do not edit code during a review unless the user also asks for fixes.

    line 24

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 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

Review AQE Quality

  1. Read AGENTS.md, the diff or requested scope, affected implementation, tests, and configuration.
  2. Review for correctness first: broken behavior, data loss, security, concurrency, compatibility, and missing error paths.
  3. Use references/quality-gates.md to select relevant QE review lenses. Do not run unrelated broad scans.
  4. Verify claims with focused commands where safe and available. Distinguish observed failures from inferred risks.
  5. Report findings by severity with file and line references, the triggering scenario, and the smallest useful remediation.
  6. End with one verdict:
    • PASS: no material finding and adequate evidence;
    • CONDITIONAL: bounded risks or missing environment-dependent evidence;
    • FAIL: correctness, safety, compatibility, or verification blocker.
  7. List the exact checks run and any checks not run.

Do not edit code during a review unless the user also asks for fixes.

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.

Check your setup, free