$ loading_
Validate specs, ADRs, task plans, and code quality before delivery.
Copy the install command and let the AI configure it · recommended for beginners
Please install the "quality-gate" skill from askskill: 1. Download https://raw.githubusercontent.com/microsoft/devsquad-copilot/main/.github/plugins/devsquad/skills/quality-gate/SKILL.md 2. Save it as ~/.claude/skills/quality-gate/SKILL.md 3. Reload skills and tell me it's ready
Act as quality-gate and review this product specification for delivery readiness. Check whether goals are clear, scope is complete, acceptance criteria are testable, and risks and dependencies are explicit. Output a list of issues and suggested fixes.
A delivery-readiness review with quality issues, gaps, risks, and actionable improvements.
Use quality-gate to review this ADR. Focus on whether the context is sufficient, alternatives are reasonable, decision criteria are clear, and trade-offs and consequences are complete. Decide whether it is ready for formal submission.
An ADR quality assessment stating submission readiness and what must be added or corrected.
Act as quality-gate to inspect the following task breakdown and code implementation. Confirm whether task boundaries are clear, dependency order is sound, any gaps exist, and the code satisfies the spec and acceptance criteria. Provide blocking issues and a pass/fail conclusion.
A combined quality review covering task design flaws, implementation deviations, blockers, and a final verdict.
SDD artifacts propagate quality downstream: a vague spec generates ambiguous tasks that generate incorrect code. Evaluating quality at the point of creation is cheaper than fixing it later.
Use this skill after generating an artifact and before presenting it to the user:
| Agent | Artifact | Activate when |
|---|---|---|
devsquad.specify | spec.md | Spec generated or updated |
devsquad.plan | ADRs, plan.md | ADR created or plan finalized |
devsquad.decompose | tasks.md, work items | Task decomposition completed |
devsquad.implement | Code | Medium or high impact task implemented |
Do not use for: low impact tasks (typo, log, formatting), intermediate artifacts that will be reviewed manually, or when the user explicitly asks to skip validation.
Generate artifact → Evaluate against rubric → Identify failures → Fix → Re-evaluate (if needed) → Deliver
Maximum of 2 correction iterations. If after 2 attempts there are still failures, deliver the artifact with documented failures for human decision.
Evaluation depth scales with the artifact's risk. Use the classification from the complexity-analysis skill when available, or infer from context.
| Level | When | What to evaluate |
|---|---|---|
| Quick | Low impact, established pattern | Only critical criteria (immediate FAIL) |
| Standard | Medium impact, most artifacts | Complete rubric for the artifact type |
| Deep | High impact, high risk, first time | Complete rubric + cross-verification with related artifacts |
Each artifact type has a dedicated rubric. Read only the rubric for the artifact being evaluated:
| Artifact | Rubric |
|---|---|
| spec.md (feature) | Read references/rubrica-spec.md |
| spec.md (migration) | Read references/rubrica-migration-spec.md |
| ADR | Read references/rubrica-adr.md |
| tasks.md / work items | Read references/rubrica-tasks.md |
| Code (implementation) | Read references/rubrica-code.md |
To determine spec type: if the spec is under docs/migrations/, use the migration rubric. If under docs/features/, use the feature rubric.
After evaluation, present the result in a compact form. Adapt to the evaluation level.
Evaluation: [artifact type]
Result: OK (N/N critical criteria pass)
Alerts: [list quality criteria that failed, if any]
Proceed with delivery to the user.
Evaluation: [artifact type]
Result: FAILURES FOUND
Critical:
- [ID]: [dimension] — [what is wrong] → [how to fix]
Quality:
- [ID]: [dimension] — [observation]
Fixing automatically...
Fix the critical issues, re-evaluate, and only then deliver.
Evaluation: [artifact type]
Result: PERSISTENT FAILURES (after 2 correction attempts)
Unresolved failures:
- [ID]: [dimension] — [description] — Reason: [why it could not be resolved]
Action needed: Human decision on how to proceed.
Deliver the artifact with documented failures.
| Parameter | Value | Justification |
|---|---|---|
| Max correction iterations | 2 | Avoid infinite loop. If 2 attempts don't resolve it, the problem requires human intervention. |
| Timeout per evaluation | Proportional to artifact | Spec: evaluate all dimensions. Task with 50 items: 30% sampling. |
| Sampling for tasks | If > 20 tasks, evaluate 100% of critical criteria + 30% sample for quality | Balance between coverage and context cost. |
…
Design and review software architecture diagrams for clearer, documentation-friendly visuals.
Create, switch, and verify Git branches before starting implementation work.
Initialize projects or verify and generate up-to-date SDD documentation templates.
Verify and create standard community and governance files for new projects.
Verify assignee, dependencies, priority, and capacity before starting a work item.
Systematically triage failures and fix broken builds or unexpected runtime issues.
Add quality gates for coding agents to catch common AI mistakes.
Score AI-generated API tests and enforce progressive quality gates.
Force factual investigation before edits or commands to improve output quality.
Trigger a code review against plans or requirements before moving forward.
Create and maintain ADRs with checks, references, and planning support.
Finalize completed work by committing, pushing, and opening reviewed pull requests.