shorts-qa
Skill38 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
The quality gate for edited talking-head shorts. Seven measured checks — cuts, captions, motion-graphic sync, video fidelity vs source, audio integrity, decode, and retention. Use before shipping any clip produced by shorts-edit, or when asked whether a video is ready, whether quality was lost, or to verify an edit.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- timscheuerai/gtm-architecture-templatetheir own version, first seen Sep 14, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- timscheuerai/gtm-architecture-template★ 2same 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 repository18 other files it gives its agents.
- graphics-designerSkill
- launch-videoSkill
- lead-magnet-creatorSkill
- linkedin-copywriterSkill
- long-formSkill
- newsletter-writerSkill
- repurposeSkill
- researcherSkill
- shorts-audioSkill
- shorts-cutSkill
- shorts-editSkill
- shorts-motionSkill
- video-useSkill
- x-copywriterSkill
- youtube-descriptionSkill
- youtube-publisherSkill
- youtube-scriptSkill
- youtube-thumbnailSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
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
- Distinctive: line 92
When a check fails, first ask whether the *check* is wrong.
- Distinctive: line 96
Read the message, don't just re-run.
≈ “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.
Files
shorts-qa
Align before you measure
The SSIM check answers exactly one question: did the encode soften the image. It must
therefore be read at the best alignment, because src_t -> out_t comes from EDL floats
and can slip by a frame — and on a talking head one frame of head movement costs
0.005-0.009 SSIM, which straddles the 0.995 threshold precisely.
It failed two perfectly good clips for moving: 0.9897 at the assumed offset, 0.9979 one
frame over. check_video now takes the max mean over ±2 frames and prints the alignment.
Timing is a different question, and verify_cuts already owns it.
Same check, second bug: it scored vals[-1], the last per-frame line of 60, not the
window mean. A gate whose number is a coin toss on one frame is not a gate.
Third: measure between the burns. A film burn is a deliberate full-frame warm flash.
Five flashed frames out of sixty drag the mean to 0.984, and the gate then shouts SOFTENED
at the one effect we added on purpose. check_video now rejects any window containing a
burn.
The verifier must be safe to run concurrently
SC was one shared /tmp/shorts_qa, so two qa.py processes overwrote each other's
ref.yuv / out.yuv and the gate compared frames from a different clip — reporting
SSIM 0.9514 on a clip that actually measures 0.9976. It is now per-PID.
Three of the four "failures" in that batch were the harness, not the footage. A verifier that is unsafe under parallelism will eventually lie, and it lies in the direction of failing good work — which is the direction that gets gates switched off.
Nothing is done until this passes. Not "looks good" — passes.
export SHORTS_PROJECT="/path/to/project"
S=~/.claude/skills/content-vault/skills/shorts-edit/scripts # wherever you cloned it
python $S/qa.py # every clip
python $S/qa.py "<clip>" # oneExit code 1 on any failure.
Why this exists
Every bug in this pipeline's history was invisible to eyeballs and obvious to a measurement. Not one was caught by watching the video.
| Check | The defect it exists to catch |
| cuts | A cut through a voiced "um". Inaudible frame-by-frame; a chewed syllable in motion. |
| captions | "THING" on screen where "THE" belonged. Every eyeball check happened to land on long words and looked perfect; "THE" is 3 frames long. |
| motion | A tier grade revealed 5.7s before it was spoken — the punchline, spoiled. Nothing flagged it; every frame was individually correct. |
| video | A second encode softening the image. SSIM 0.977 vs 0.998. Invisible on a phone, real on a 246 kbps source. |
| audio | loudnorm silently abandoning linear mode and pumping. And a mono SFX bed downmixing the stereo voice into +0.83 dBFS clipping. |
| decode | Corrupt output that still plays in QuickTime. |
| retention | 91% of a clip sitting in blocks where nothing changes for >5s. Passed every other check. |
The seven checks
- cuts — no cut edge lands on live speech. The intersection of two tests: it must land inside a word (per the transcript) AND be voiced (per the audio). Either alone is useless — the word grid gave 25 false alarms, and "voiced at the edge" flags every deliberate filler deletion.
- captions — pixel-matches each rendered frame against the word bitmap we drew, scored against the expected word and its neighbours, sampling biased toward the shortest words. Reads the schedule the renderer wrote.
- motion — every graphic fires within 0.2s of its spoken cue; no typo'd cue silently dropping a graphic; no overlapping panels.
- video — native res/fps preserved, and SSIM > 0.995 vs the source.
- audio — zero clipped samples, peak under −0.5 dBFS, stereo preserved.
- decode — clean full decode.
- retention — the 2026 five-second rule: no block >5s with nothing changing.
The meta-lesson: a verifier that assumes is a verifier that lies
Three times, the verifier was the bug:
- It recomputed the caption frame numbers instead of reading what the renderer wrote — so it re-implemented the code under test and cheerfully agreed with its off-by-one. Fix: verifiers read the artifact the renderer produced, never recompute it.
- It measured the video's SSIM over a region containing the graphics and the progress bar, cried "SOFTENED" at 0.894, and was comparing a blurred overlay to raw video. Fix: measure only where the pipeline is the only thing touching the pixels.
- It read ffmpeg's SSIM from stderr when it goes to stdout, and reported "not measurable" — which passed. A check that cannot measure is worse than no check.
When a check fails, first ask whether the check is wrong. Then fix the video.
When the gate fails
Read the message, don't just re-run. Each failure names the file and the moment. The gate prints the numbers so you can see whether a value is marginal or catastrophic.
Known-acceptable warnings:
107s > 90s LinkedIn sweet spot— informational; shorter is better but not a defect.
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.

