Instalar com Codex ou Claude Copie este prompt, cole no Codex, Claude ou outro assistente e deixe que ele revise a página da skill e instale para você.
Um comando direto ignora o prompt de revisão. Verifique a origem antes de executá-lo.
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.
When to Use This Skill (Manual)
Use this skill manually when:
ResearchPack completed and needs validation before planning
Implementation Plan completed and needs validation before coding
User explicitly requests quality check ("validate this", "is this complete?")
About to proceed to next workflow phase (quality gate trigger)
Core Principles (BRAHMA Constitution)
Verification over speculation - Validate with objective criteria
Quality gates - Don't proceed with bad inputs
Reproducibility - Same input quality = same score
Explicit defects - List specific problems, not vague "could be better"
Validation Targets
Research Type Detection
Before scoring, detect research type to apply appropriate rubric:
Type 1: API/Library Research
Indicators:
Contains API endpoints, function signatures, method calls
Code examples with specific library imports
Configuration/setup steps for external dependencies
Version numbers for libraries/frameworks
Scoring: Use API Research Rubric (80+ pass threshold)
Examples: "Add think protocol to agents", "Create context-engineering skill"
✓ Specific patterns extracted and documented (10 pts)
Check: Patterns section with clear pattern names
Check: Each pattern has description and when to use
Examples: "Pattern 1: Minimal Scaffolding", "Pattern 2: Think Before Act"
✓ Open questions identified for planning phase (5 pts)
Check: Research acknowledges what's unknown or needs deciding
Examples: "Which agents need think tool?", "When to use multi-agent?"
Depth & Coverage (20 points)
✓ Comprehensive coverage of topic (10 pts)
Check: Multiple aspects of topic covered
Check: Not surface-level (goes beyond basic definitions)
Examples: 7+ themes, 10+ sources for major topics
✓ Sufficient detail for implementation (10 pts)
Check: Enough context to make decisions
Check: Includes performance metrics, tradeoffs, examples
Examples: "39% improvement", "15x cost", specific numbers
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:
Informs how to build, not just what APIs to call
Establishes principles that apply across implementations
Captures institutional knowledge and best practices
Depth & Coverage: 18/20 (Comprehensive, but more examples would help)
Total: 96/100 ✅ PASS (well above 70 threshold)
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.
2. Implementation Plan Validation
Purpose: Ensure plan is complete, safe, and executable before coding
Validation Rubric (100 points total):
Completeness (35 points)
✓ All file changes listed with purposes (10 pts)
✓ Step-by-step implementation sequence (10 pts)
✓ Each step has verification method (10 pts)
✓ Test plan included (5 pts)
Safety (30 points)
✓ Rollback plan complete and specific (15 pts)
Must include: exact commands, verification steps, triggers
✓ Risk assessment done (10 pts)
At least 3 risks identified with mitigations
✓ Changes are minimal (fewest files possible) (5 pts)
Clarity (20 points)
✓ Steps are actionable (no ambiguity) (10 pts)
✓ Success criteria defined (5 pts)
✓ Time estimates provided (5 pts)
Alignment (15 points)
✓ Plan matches ResearchPack APIs (10 pts)
✓ Plan addresses all requirements from user (5 pts)
Passing Score: 85/100 or higher (higher bar than research)
Validation Process:
defvalidate_implementation_plan(plan, research_pack):
score = 0
defects = []
# Completeness checksif has_file_changes_list(plan):
score += 10else:
defects.append("CRITICAL: No file changes specified")
steps = extract_steps(plan)
ifall(step_has_verification(s) for s in steps):
score += 10else:
missing = [s for s in steps ifnot 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 += 15elif 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)
ifall(api_matches_research(a, research_apis) for a in apis_used):
score += 10else:
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 >= 85else"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
Quality Gate Protocol
Gates are MANDATORY checkpoints - cannot proceed to next phase without passing validation.
Gate 1: Research → Planning
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
Gate 2: Planning → Implementation
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
Gate 3: Implementation → Completion
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)
Manual Gate (Codex)
Codex CLI does not support hooks. Run this skill manually at each gate:
Run $quality-validation after ResearchPack completion.
Run $quality-validation after Implementation Plan completion.
Run $quality-validation after implementation to confirm tests/build/regressions.
Common Validation Failures
ResearchPack Failures
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)
Implementation Plan Failures
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
Performance Targets
Validation time: < 15 seconds per validation
Defect detection rate: 95%+ of major issues caught
False positive rate: < 5% (don't block good work)
This skill enforces objective quality gates for the Research → Plan → Implement workflow.
