Menu
Quality gate. 5 parallel agents review changes. All must pass.
Installer avec Codex ou Claude Copiez ce prompt, collez-le dans Codex, Claude ou un autre assistant, puis laissez-le vérifier la page du skill et l'installer pour vous.
Basé sur la classification professionnelle SOC
Validate Rust work after substantial Rust code changes by running `just check`, `just clippy`, then `just format`. Use before the final response after a significant Rust implementation or cleanup task; batch edits first instead of running after every small change.
Inspect Rust changes for SQLx queries. Use after modifying Rust code that adds or changes SQLx queries to ensure compile-time SQLx macros are used, run `just prepare_db` for offline query cache, and review queries for performance and security issues.
Upgrade an AI chat model (fast or good) across backend and frontend.
Create SQLx migration files with `sqlx migrate add <name>`. Use when asked to add, create, or generate a sqlx/sqlx-cli database migration.
Build a new AI tool end-to-end — Rust implementation, toolset wiring, infra, schema generation, and frontend UI.
Find all open Dependabot alerts for this repo and create a plan to resolve them using the appropriate package manager overrides (pnpm, bun, npm, cargo).
| name | qc |
| description | Quality gate. 5 parallel agents review changes. All must pass. |
| allowed-tools | Task, Bash, Read, Grep, Glob |
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.
Spawn all 5 in parallel. All output raw JSON only, no markdown.
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": [...]}
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": [...]}
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": [...]}
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": [...]}
TASK: ${TASK}
FILES: ${FILES}
DIFF: ${DIFF}
- Solved the problem or just the symptom?
- Changes unrelated to task?
- Unnecessary refactoring?
{"pass": bool, "issues": [...]}
| 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.