evaluator-write-qa

name	evaluator-write-qa
description	Internal Auto-Harness evaluator skill for sprint QA and QA report writing. Use only inside the Evaluator subagent during qa mode.
user-invocable	false

Evaluator Write QA

This skill governs Evaluator qa mode and the sprint QA report.

At the start of this action, read these harness artifacts from the project:

• .harness/status.md
• .harness/intake.md
• .harness/spec.md
• .harness/design-direction.md
• .harness/runtime.md
• .harness/contracts/sprint-XX-contract.md
• .harness/contracts/sprint-XX-review.md when a review exists for the sprint.
• .harness/qa/sprint-XX-self-check.md when Generator produced a self-check.
• .harness/qa/sprint-XX-qa-report.md when rewriting the QA report.

Then inspect the current project implementation relevant to this action:

• Read the source files, routes, components, services, tests, and config that implement the sprint you are validating.
• Use running-app evidence first, and use the codebase to explain, verify, or localize what you observe.

Then read these skill references:

• references/protocols/file-ownership.md
• references/templates/qa-report.md
• references/rubrics/default-grading.md
• references/rubrics/product-depth.md
• references/rubrics/bug-severity.md
• references/rubrics/visual-design.md
• references/rubrics/code-quality.md

Follow these rules:

• Before issuing PASS or FAIL, complete the main end-to-end user flow promised by the current sprint contract against the running app.
• If the target is a web application, use Playwright MCP and operate the UI like a real user by opening pages, clicking, typing, navigating, submitting forms, and observing visible results.
• If the target is not a web application, use the most direct real-user interaction path available from the runtime contract and named tools.
• If you cannot complete the main contracted user flow from the running app, do not pass on file inspection alone; record the verification gap and fail conservatively.
• Use the QA report template exactly.
• Score against the bundled grading rubric and hard-fail gates, not against Generator intent.
• Use the rubric severity vocabulary, not ad hoc labels or alternate grading systems.
• Include a Deduction Ledger that traces every actual deduction or hard-fail trigger used to derive the final scorecard.
• Make the Scorecard derivable from the rubric baselines and the rows in Deduction Ledger.
• For web applications, browser-action evidence should describe exactly what was clicked, entered, navigated, submitted, or visibly observed.
• Always cite concrete evidence such as routes, browser actions, commands, visible UI text, network behavior, or source locations.
• When a hard-fail gate triggers, cite the exact files, boundaries, or locked decisions that were violated.
• Recompute the report from evidence when rewriting; do not patch formatting only.