A multi-agent quality gate that performs automated parallel reviews for simplification, consistency, and robustness.
Install
mkdir -p .claude/skills/qc && curl -L -o skill.zip "https://agentskills.codes/api/skills/download/11868" && unzip -o skill.zip -d .claude/skills/qc && rm skill.zipInstalls to .claude/skills/qc
Activation
This is the description your AI agent reads to decide when to run this skill — the better it matches your request, the more reliably it fires.
Quality gate. 5 parallel agents review changes. All must pass.Key capabilities
- →Review code for descriptive naming and error handling
- →Identify overcomplicated logic and reduce indirection
- →Check consistency with existing codebase patterns
- →Assess reliable for edge cases and regression risk
- →Evaluate changes for task relevance and unnecessary refactoring
How it works
Five parallel agents review code changes based on specific criteria, and all agents must pass for the changes to be approved.
Inputs & outputs
When to use qc
- →Validate code before merging
- →Review changes for consistency
- →Check for over-complicated logic
- →Verify edge case handling
About this skill
QC Gate
Setup
DIFF=$(git diff main)
FILES=$(git diff main --name-only)
TASK="{task description or 'general changes'}"
Read 1-2 unmodified files from same directories for pattern context.
Agents
Spawn all 5 in parallel. All output raw JSON only, no markdown.
1: Code Review (sonnet)
DIFF: ${DIFF}
- Descriptive naming?
- Errors caught with useful messages?
- No hardcoded values, commented code, debug statements?
- No TODO without ticket ref?
- No obvious bugs?
- No useless comments?
{"pass": bool, "issues": [...]}
2: Simplification (sonnet)
DIFF: ${DIFF}
- Is this overcomplicated? Can I solve the same problem in a simpler manner?
- Can I reduce indirection?
- Can I reduce surface area?
- Premature abstraction? Premature Optimization? YAGNI violations?
- Dead code?
- Three similar lines > one abstraction
{"pass": bool, "issues": [...]}
3: Consistency (sonnet)
DIFF: ${DIFF}
PATTERNS: ${PATTERN_FILES}
- Matches existing codebase patterns?
- Proper types, no any, no unsafe casts?
- Idiomatic error handling?
- Changes internally consistent?
- Is logic isolated and composable?
- Are there existing tests if neccesary?
{"pass": bool, "issues": [...]}
4: Robustness (sonnet)
TASK: ${TASK}
DIFF: ${DIFF}
- Actually solves the problem?
- Edge cases: empty, null, zero, negative, boundaries, concurrency?
- Regression risk: changed signatures, shared state, removed exports?
- Maintains API contracts?
{"pass": bool, "issues": [...]}
5: Scope (haiku)
TASK: ${TASK}
FILES: ${FILES}
DIFF: ${DIFF}
- Solved the problem or just the symptom?
- Changes unrelated to task?
- Unnecessary refactoring?
{"pass": bool, "issues": [...]}
Results
| Check | Verdict | Issues |
|---|---|---|
| Code Review | ✓/✗ | ... |
| Simplification | ✓/✗ | ... |
| Consistency | ✓/✗ | ... |
| Robustness | ✓/✗ | ... |
| Scope | ✓/✗ | ... |
ALL PASS: Ready to commit.
ANY FAIL: List issues, fix them, run /qc again.
Same issue 3x: Escalate to user.
Notes
- Invalid JSON? Retry once. Still broken? Mark fail.
- Large diffs (>500 lines): run simplification file-by-file.
When not to use it
- →When a single agent review is sufficient
- →When large diffs require file-by-file simplification outside the scope of this skill
- →When an agent produces invalid JSON output repeatedly
Limitations
- →All 5 agents must pass for approval.
- →Invalid JSON output from an agent results in a retry, then a fail.
- →Large diffs (>500 lines) may require simplification file-by-file.
How it compares
This skill automates a multi-faceted code review process with parallel agents, providing a structured and complete quality gate compared to a single manual review.
Compared to similar skills
qc side by side with the closest alternatives in the catalog.
| Skill | Installs | Updated | Safety | Difficulty |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| qc (this skill) | 0 | 6mo | Review | Intermediate |
| verification-before-completion | 9 | 10mo | No flags | Beginner |
| mutation-testing | 5 | 5mo | Review | Advanced |
| workflow-patterns | 1 | 2mo | No flags | Intermediate |
Try saying
Example prompts that trigger this skill in your AI assistant.
You might also like
verification-before-completion
obra
Use when about to claim work is complete, fixed, or passing, before committing or creating PRs - requires running verification commands and confirming output before making any success claims; evidence before assertions always
mutation-testing
metabase
Run mutation testing on a Clojure namespace, generate tests to kill surviving mutations, and open draft PRs with Linear issue tracking.
workflow-patterns
wshobson
Use this skill when implementing tasks according to Conductor's TDD workflow, handling phase checkpoints, managing git commits for tasks, or understanding the verification protocol.
tdd-workflows-tdd-refactor
sickn33
Use when working with tdd workflows tdd refactor
customaize-agent:create-hook
LAI-YEN-CHUN
Create and configure git hooks with intelligent project analysis, suggestions, and automated testing
qa
gmaiarviana
> **📌 Carregado por:** Claude Code Web após Dev marcar tasks como concluídas. > **📌 Documentação:** ver [README.md](README.md) para visão geral.