القائمة
Validate ResearchPacks and Implementation Plans with scoring rubrics and quality gates. Prevents garbage-in-garbage-out scenarios.
يُحدَّد Prompt الذي يراجع المصدر أولًا بشكل افتراضي. يمكنك التبديل إلى أمر مباشر أو تنزيل نسخة محلية.
اقرأ SKILL.md وأي ملفات مرافقة يعرضها SkillsMP قبل أن تقرر التثبيت.
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
يتجاوز الأمر المباشر Prompt المخصّص للمراجعة. افحص المصدر قبل تشغيله.
npx skills add https://github.com/materialofair/oh-my-codex --skill quality-validationيبقى الأمر في سطر واحد. مرّر أفقيًا لمراجعته كاملًا قبل النسخ.
تفضّل نسخة محلية؟ نزّل الملفات المتاحة حاليًا لدى SkillsMP.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
عرض SKILL.md
| name | quality-validation |
| description | Validate ResearchPacks and Implementation Plans with scoring rubrics and quality gates. Prevents garbage-in-garbage-out scenarios. |
| auto_invoke | false |
| tags | ["validation","quality","verification","gates"] |
| version | 0.1.0 |
| source | fork |
| checksum | 8c8656ea4d93dad0d4a86a99cd971a4c63a0199d5ee969196a54d0b5b270562d |
| updated_at | 2026-02-05T08:22:10.000Z |
| layer | quality |
This skill provides systematic validation methodology to ensure ResearchPacks and Implementation Plans meet quality standards before proceeding to implementation.
Codex CLI: Manual invocation only (
$quality-validation). No hooks or auto-run.
Use this skill manually when:
Before scoring, detect research type to apply appropriate rubric:
Indicators:
Scoring: Use API Research Rubric (80+ pass threshold)
Indicators:
Scoring: Use Philosophy Research Rubric (70+ pass threshold)
Examples: Engineering philosophy, architectural patterns, best practices, methodology research
Indicators:
Scoring: Use Pattern Research Rubric (70+ pass threshold)
Why Different Thresholds?
Purpose: Ensure research is complete, accurate, and actionable before planning
Validation Rubric for API/Library Research (100 points total, 80+ pass threshold):
Passing Score: 80/100 or higher
Validation Process:
# Pseudo-code for validation logic
def validate_research_pack(research_pack):
score = 0
defects = []
# Completeness checks
if has_library_with_version(research_pack):
score += 10
else:
defects.append("CRITICAL: Library/version not identified")
api_count = count_documented_apis(research_pack)
if api_count >= 3:
score += 10
elif api_count > 0:
score += (api_count / 3) * 10
defects.append(f"MINOR: Only {api_count} APIs documented, need 3+")
else:
defects.append("CRITICAL: No APIs documented")
# ... (continue for all criteria)
return {
"score": score,
"grade": "PASS" if score >= 80 else "FAIL",
"defects": defects,
"recommendations": generate_recommendations(defects)
}
Output Format:
## 📊 ResearchPack Validation Report
**Overall Score**: [X]/100
**Grade**: [PASS ✅ / FAIL ❌]
### Breakdown
- Completeness: [X]/40
- Accuracy: [X]/30
- Citation: [X]/20
- Actionability: [X]/10
### Defects Found ([N])
#### CRITICAL (blocks implementation)
1. [Specific defect with example]
2. [Another defect]
#### MAJOR (should fix before proceeding)
1. [Defect]
#### MINOR (nice to have)
1. [Defect]
### Recommendations
**To reach passing score**:
1. [Specific action to take]
2. [Another action]
**If score >= 80**: ✅ **APPROVED** - Proceed to implementation-planner
**If score < 80**: ❌ **BLOCKED** - Fix critical/major defects and re-validate
Purpose: Ensure philosophy/pattern research is well-organized, sourced, and actionable
Validation Rubric for Philosophy Research (100 points total, 70+ pass threshold):
Passing Score: 70/100 or higher
Why Lower Threshold Than API Research?
Philosophy research is inherently more subjective and thematic. A well-organized thematic analysis with 7 patterns from 11 sources (like the Anthropic ResearchPack) deserves to pass even if it doesn't have "3+ API endpoints with exact signatures."
Philosophy research provides strategic value:
Example: Anthropic Engineering Philosophy ResearchPack
Would score:
Output Format:
## 📊 ResearchPack Validation Report (Philosophy Research)
**Overall Score**: [X]/100
**Grade**: [PASS ✅ / FAIL ❌]
**Research Type**: Philosophy/Pattern Research
### Breakdown
**Thematic Organization** ([X]/30):
- Clear themes: [Y/10] [✓/✗]
- Theme documentation: [Y/10] [✓/✗]
- Cross-synthesis: [Y/10] [✓/✗]
**Source Quality** ([X]/20):
- Official sources: [Y/10] [✓/✗]
- Multiple sources per theme: [Y/5] [✓/✗]
- Date/version info: [Y/5] [✓/✗]
**Actionable Insights** ([X]/30):
- Implementation checklist: [Y/15] [✓/✗]
- Patterns extracted: [Y/10] [✓/✗]
- Open questions: [Y/5] [✓/✗]
**Depth & Coverage** ([X]/20):
- Comprehensive coverage: [Y/10] [✓/✗]
- Sufficient detail: [Y/10] [✓/✗]
### Defects Found ([N])
#### CRITICAL (blocks implementation)
1. [Defect - if no themes identified, no patterns extracted, etc.]
#### MAJOR (should fix before proceeding)
1. [Defect - if only 1 source per theme, missing implementation checklist, etc.]
#### MINOR (nice to have)
1. [Defect - if some themes lack examples, could use more sources, etc.]
### Recommendations
**To reach passing score** (if < 70):
1. [Specific action to take]
2. [Another action]
**If score >= 70**: ✅ **APPROVED** - Proceed to implementation-planner
**If score < 70**: ❌ **BLOCKED** - Fix critical/major defects and re-validate
**Philosophy Research Note**: This research provides strategic guidance for implementation. Even if specific API details are needed later, the principles and patterns documented here are valuable for decision-making.
Purpose: Ensure plan is complete, safe, and executable before coding
Validation Rubric (100 points total):
Passing Score: 85/100 or higher (higher bar than research)
Validation Process:
def validate_implementation_plan(plan, research_pack):
score = 0
defects = []
# Completeness checks
if has_file_changes_list(plan):
score += 10
else:
defects.append("CRITICAL: No file changes specified")
steps = extract_steps(plan)
if all(step_has_verification(s) for s in steps):
score += 10
else:
missing = [s for s in steps if not step_has_verification(s)]
score += (len(steps) - len(missing)) / len(steps) * 10
defects.append(f"MAJOR: Steps {missing} lack verification")
# Safety checks
rollback = extract_rollback_plan(plan)
if has_exact_commands(rollback) and has_triggers(rollback):
score += 15
elif has_rollback_section(plan):
score += 8
defects.append("MAJOR: Rollback plan incomplete (missing commands or triggers)")
else:
defects.append("CRITICAL: No rollback plan")
# Alignment checks
apis_used = extract_apis_from_plan(plan)
research_apis = extract_apis_from_research(research_pack)
if all(api_matches_research(a, research_apis) for a in apis_used):
score += 10
else:
mismatches = find_api_mismatches(apis_used, research_apis)
defects.append(f"CRITICAL: APIs don't match ResearchPack: {mismatches}")
# ... (continue for all criteria)
return {
"score": score,
"grade": "PASS" if score >= 85 else "FAIL",
"defects": defects,
"recommendations": generate_recommendations(defects)
}
Output Format:
## 📊 Implementation Plan Validation Report
**Overall Score**: [X]/100
**Grade**: [PASS ✅ / FAIL ❌]
### Breakdown
- Completeness: [X]/35
- Safety: [X]/30
- Clarity: [X]/20
- Alignment: [X]/15
### Defects Found ([N])
#### CRITICAL (blocks implementation)
1. [Specific defect]
#### MAJOR (should fix)
1. [Defect]
#### MINOR (nice to have)
1. [Defect]
### API Alignment Check
✅ All APIs match ResearchPack
OR
❌ Mismatches found:
- Plan uses `foo(x, y)` but ResearchPack shows `foo(x: string, y?: number)`
### Recommendations
**To reach passing score**:
1. [Action]
**If score >= 85**: ✅ **APPROVED** - Proceed to code-implementer
**If score < 85**: ❌ **BLOCKED** - Fix defects and re-validate
Gates are MANDATORY checkpoints - cannot proceed to next phase without passing validation.
Trigger: @docs-researcher completes ResearchPack
Action: Validate ResearchPack
Decision:
- Score >= 80: ✅ Allow @implementation-planner to proceed
- Score < 80: ❌ Block, return to @docs-researcher with defect list
Trigger: @implementation-planner completes Implementation Plan
Action: Validate Implementation Plan + check alignment with ResearchPack
Decision:
- Score >= 85 AND APIs match: ✅ Allow @code-implementer to proceed
- Score < 85 OR APIs mismatch: ❌ Block, return to @implementation-planner with defect list
Trigger: @code-implementer reports completion
Action: Validate tests passed, build succeeded, no regressions
Decision:
- All checks pass: ✅ Mark complete
- Any check fails: ❌ Trigger self-correction loop (up to 3 attempts)
Codex CLI does not support hooks. Run this skill manually at each gate:
$quality-validation after ResearchPack completion.$quality-validation after Implementation Plan completion.$quality-validation after implementation to confirm tests/build/regressions.Hallucinated APIs:
❌ CRITICAL: API `redis.client.fetch()` not found in official docs
ResearchPack cites: redis.io/docs/clients/nodejs
Actual API: `client.get()` (verified at redis.io/docs/clients/nodejs#get)
FIX: Replace all instances of `fetch` with correct `get` API
Version mismatch:
❌ MAJOR: ResearchPack uses v3.x docs but project has v4.6.0
Example: v3 uses callbacks, v4 uses promises
FIX: Re-fetch docs for v4.6.0 specifically
Missing citations:
❌ MAJOR: 5 APIs listed without source URLs
APIs: set(), del(), ttl(), exists(), keys()
FIX: Add source URL for each (format: docs.com/path#section)
No rollback plan:
❌ CRITICAL: Rollback plan missing
FIX: Add section "## 🔄 Rollback Plan" with:
- Exact git commands to revert
- Configuration restoration steps
- Verification after rollback
- Triggers for when to rollback
Ambiguous steps:
❌ MAJOR: Step 3 says "Update the service" (too vague)
FIX: Specify:
- Which service? (path/to/ServiceName.ts)
- What update? (Add method X, modify method Y)
- How to verify? (run `npm test path/to/test.ts`)
API misalignment:
❌ CRITICAL: Plan uses `client.fetch(key)` but ResearchPack shows `client.get(key)`
FIX: Update plan to use correct API signature from ResearchPack
This skill enforces objective quality gates for the Research → Plan → Implement workflow.