| name | qa |
| emoji | ✅ |
| description | Quality assurance review — 6-dimension checklist covering template compliance, factual accuracy, completeness, track changes, research audit, and instruction cross-reference. |
| requires | {"tools":["read_document","list_documents","compare","run_code","web_search","web_fetch"]} |
Quality Assurance Review
When to Use
Use this skill when:
- The user says /qa
- A matter is transitioning from WORKING to REVIEW
- Counsel requests a fresh QA pass after a return
- The agent has finished editing a document and needs verification
Process
1. Inventory the Workspace
Call list_documents to see all files. Identify:
- The primary deliverable (the main contract/document being worked on)
- The intake summary (
intake_*.md) for client instructions
- Any playbook files (
Playbook/*.md, anylegal.md)
- Any research notes or memos created during the work
- The original uploaded document (if different from the deliverable)
2. Template Compliance Check
Read the deliverable with read_document. Check:
3. Factual Accuracy Check
Verify legal facts in the document:
4. Completeness Check
Read the intake summary and compare against the deliverable:
5. Track Changes Review
Use run_code (default Python) with lxml to count tracked changes (w:ins, w:del), extract authors, and assess edit scope. Then:
6. Research Audit
If research notes or memos exist:
Use web_search and web_fetch to spot-check 2-3 key citations.
7. Generate QA Report
Create a qa_<date>.md document with:
# QA Report — [Matter Title]
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Reviewer:** Agent QA
**Document:** [deliverable filename]
## Summary
[1-2 sentence overall assessment]
## Checklist
### Template Compliance
- [x] Structure matches template
- [x] Numbering correct
...
### Factual Accuracy
- [x] Jurisdictions correct
...
### Completeness
- [x] All client instructions addressed
...
### Track Changes
- [x] All edits justified
...
### Research Audit
- [x] Citations verified
...
## Issues Found
[List any issues, with severity: CRITICAL / WARNING / INFO]
## Verdict
[PASS / PASS WITH WARNINGS / FAIL]
Guidelines
- Be thorough but proportionate — a simple NDA review needs less scrutiny than a cross-border compliance matter
- If you find CRITICAL issues, clearly flag them — these block approval
- WARNING issues should be noted but don't necessarily block approval
- Always generate the QA report even if everything passes — the report is the audit trail
- If the original document is available, use
compare to verify the edit scope makes sense
- Do not modify the deliverable during QA — only read and report