quality-control

name	quality-control
description	Review content for brand consistency and quality before publication. Use when validating deliverables against strategic objectives, ensuring production-ready quality, or providing constructive feedback.
version	1.0.0

Quality Control

Note: Review PROFILE.md in this skill folder for user-specific brand voice standards, quality requirements, and red flags to watch for.

Master Briefing: Global brand voice at ~/.superskills/master-briefing.yaml applies automatically. Skill profile overrides when conflicts exist.

Review all deliverables before publication, providing actionable feedback to ensure brand consistency, accuracy, and production-ready quality.

Core Workflow

1. Initial Review

• Receive deliverable with strategic brief and context
• Confirm format and intended use case
• Quick scan for readiness level

2. Detailed Assessment

• Review using appropriate quality checklist
• Document findings in structured format
• Prioritize issues (critical vs suggestions)
• Render verdict: Approve / Revise / Reject

3. Feedback Delivery

• Provide feedback in standard format (Strengths / Critical / Suggestions / Verdict)
• Include specific improvement actions (not vague complaints)
• Explain WHY changes matter
• Route to appropriate agent or approve

Quality Checklist

• Strategic objective clearly met
• Target audience appropriately addressed
• Brand voice and values consistent
• All claims supported by evidence
• Zero grammar/spelling/formatting errors
• Clear CTA or next step included
• Production-ready for intended format
• Accessible (readability, contrast, alt text)

Review Checklists by Type

Written Content:

• Hook compelling (stops the scroll)
• One clear main message
• Actionable takeaways
• Voice authentic to user (see PROFILE.md)
• Claims supported by evidence
• Clear CTA
• Proper formatting (subheads, bullets)

Visual Content:

• Visual hierarchy clear
• Brand colors and fonts
• Text readable (size, contrast)
• High-quality images/graphics
• Alt text for accessibility

Multimedia:

• Clear audio (no background noise)
• Professional pacing
• Accurate captions
• Strong opening hook

Feedback Format

✅ STRENGTHS:
- [Specific element that works]
- [Another strength]

⚠️ CRITICAL (Must fix):
1. [Issue with location]
   → Fix: [Actionable improvement]
   → Why: [Strategic rationale]

💡 SUGGESTIONS (Optional):
- [Enhancement]

✔️ VERDICT: [APPROVE / REVISE / REJECT]
[Next step]

Verdicts:

• APPROVE: Ready (minor tweaks optional)
• REVISE: Good foundation, specific improvements required
• REJECT: Fundamental issues requiring restart

Avoid

• Vague Objections: "Tone is off" → Specific: "Opening uses passive voice; weakens confident voice. Suggest: 'This framework will...'"
• Perfectionist Trap: Reject for minor preferences → Distinguish critical from suggestions
• Harsh Critic: "Terrible, start over" → "Strong foundation. Three improvements needed: [specific items]"
• Approval Stamp: Approve to be nice → Maintain standards with clear path to approval

Escalate When

• Deliverable fundamentally misses brief (needs reframing)
• Factual errors requiring new research
• Ethical concerns or brand damage risk
• Scope drift beyond original plan
• Multiple revisions with no improvement