llm-wiki-quality-gate

name	llm-wiki-quality-gate
description	Quality gate runtime skill for LLM Awesome Wiki. Use when an agent needs to run or record compare reports, source/wiki coverage, claim/modality/contradiction review, review queues, validation notes, workspace checks, or round closure decisions.

LLM Wiki Quality Gate

Role

Use this subskill for compare, review, validation, and closure. It is part of knowledge-base construction, not downstream skill + tool generation.

This skill owns the normal quality-gate runtime. It does not rewrite wiki pages or use model self-evaluation as a pass.

Detailed rules are loaded only when needed:

• rules/wiki/source-wiki-coverage-protocol.md for source/wiki coverage, omission, disposition, and anchor tables
• rules/claims/claim-modality-contradiction-review-protocol.md for claim support, generated evidence, modality, unsupported statements, and contradictions
• rules/review/review-queue-workflow.md for review lifecycle and blocking level

Inputs

• round plan and fixed scope
• source inventory and source packets in scope
• semantic draft or wiki construction analysis when wiki pages changed
• source outline or coverage plan for document/PPT wiki rounds
• changed or inspected wiki pages
• wiki/overview.md, wiki/index.md, and wiki/log.md
• claim/evidence records when important claims are in scope
• current review queue
• validation notes and tool output

Missing expected inputs must be recorded. Missing input is not an implicit pass.

Runtime

1. Run available validators for the touched artifact family.
2. Write or inspect a compare report. It should answer:
   • what was in scope
   • whether the round was full-round, selective, or overview-only
   • which source packets and anchors were checked
   • whether core source units are covered at the right detail level, weak, deferred, omitted, or routed to review
   • whether the accepted wiki preserves the semantic draft's important definitions, formulas, derivations, examples, tables, and implications
   • whether core formulas and derivations are represented or explicitly block knowledge coverage
   • whether useful candidate-derived content is grounded, narrowed, or routed to review instead of silently discarded
   • which wiki pages changed or were inspected
   • whether important claims have source, evidence, accepted review, or review routing
   • which generated, skipped, or uncertain modalities matter
   • whether links, index, overview, and log are current
   • which omissions, contradictions, unsupported statements, or review items block advancement
3. Use only compare status values:
   • pass
   • fail
   • needs-review
4. Do not treat compare gate not enabled, model confidence, or "looks complete" as pass.
5. Write or inspect the validation note.
6. Decide closure:
   • close-pass: compare is pass, validation exists, no blocking review remains, knowledge coverage is pass, generated evidence is marked or reviewed, semantic draft richness is not materially lost, and navigation/log state is acceptable
   • close-with-review: compare is needs-review, artifacts are structurally reviewable, and carried-forward review has reason, next action, target round or condition, and blocking level. This can carry nonblocking modality review or explicit overview/selective deferrals, but not a full-round core coverage hole or missing core formula/derivation coverage.
   • do-not-close: compare is fail, required artifacts are missing, blocking review remains, full-round core knowledge coverage is weak or missing, accepted wiki is materially poorer than the semantic draft, or index/overview/log/claim/source coverage is materially stale
7. Update workspace logs and commit only accepted close-pass or explicitly allowed close-with-review state.

Outputs

• compare report or explicit validation note that compare is not enabled
• source/wiki coverage, claim support, modality, unsupported statement, contradiction, and review findings at the level needed for the round
• review queue updates for unresolved judgment
• validation note
• closure decision
• next action or next round

Validation

Prefer the narrowest relevant check first, then broader checks:

python -m llm_wiki_tools workspace-check --workspace . --mode reports
python -m llm_wiki_tools workspace-check --workspace . --mode closure
python -m llm_wiki_tools workspace-check --workspace . --mode all

If checks are unavailable, record the missing checker state. Do not convert missing validation, model confidence, or "looks complete" into pass.

Minimum manual checks:

• report status is pass, fail, or needs-review
• accepted wiki changes remain discoverable from index/log/overview state
• important claims have source anchors, evidence, accepted review, or review routing
• accepted wiki pages did not drop important semantic draft content without grounding, narrowing, deferral, or review routing
• core document/PPT source units have anchor disposition or explicit overview/selective deferral
• knowledge coverage review is separate from modality review
• formula/equation/derivation gaps that support accepted knowledge affect knowledge coverage status, not only modality status
• generated evidence is visible and not treated as source-derived truth by default
• unresolved review is carried forward with reason and next action
• close-pass is never used with missing compare, blocking review, or stale navigation