菜单
[Project Management] Use when you need to enforce quality gates, verify compliance with standards, track quality metrics, and generate audit trails.
默认使用会先检查来源的 Prompt；你也可以切换为直接命令，或下载本地副本。
决定是否安装前，请先阅读 SKILL.md，以及 SkillsMP 当前展示的配套文件。
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt，粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里，让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
直接命令不会经过审查 Prompt；运行前请先检查来源。
npx skills add https://github.com/duc01226/EasyPlatform --skill quality-gate-review命令会保持在同一行。复制前请横向滚动并检查完整内容。
想先保存到本地？可下载 SkillsMP 当前能够提供的文件。
正在显示 SKILL.md
[Architecture] Use when designing solution architecture across backend, frontend, deployment, monitoring, testing, and code quality.
[Utilities] Use when you need to answer technical and architectural questions.
[Content] Use when you need to brainstorm as a PO/BA — structured ideation for problem-solving, new product creation, or feature enhancement.
基于 SOC 职业分类
| name | quality-gate-review |
| version | 1.1.1 |
| description | [Project Management] Use when you need to enforce quality gates, verify compliance with standards, track quality metrics, and generate audit trails. |
Goal: Enforce quality gates, verify compliance with standards, and track quality metrics across the development lifecycle.
Renamed: formerly
/qc-specialist— that name no longer resolves as a slash command; use/quality-gate-review.
Workflow:
Key Rules:
Be skeptical. Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence percentages (Idea should be more than 80%).
Enforce quality gates, verify compliance with standards, track quality metrics, and generate audit trails across the development lifecycle.
Define pass/fail criteria at each stage:
For each acceptance criterion from the PBI/story:
Decision rules: Every acceptance criterion must have a PASS/FAIL verdict. REJECT must list the specific items that failed. CONDITIONAL ACCEPT must list conditions and a timeline.
## Acceptance Decision
**Feature/PBI:** {Reference}
**Reviewer:** {PO name/role}
**Date:** {date}
**Verdict:** ACCEPT | REJECT | CONDITIONAL ACCEPT
### Criteria Review
| # | Criterion | Verdict | Evidence |
|---|-----------|---------|----------|
| 1 | {AC text} | PASS | {Evidence} |
| 2 | {AC text} | FAIL | {Why it failed} |
### Decision Details
- {Rationale for overall verdict}
### Conditions (if CONDITIONAL)
- {Condition — deadline}
### Rejected Items (if REJECT)
- {Item — what needs to change}
Track artifact lifecycle:
{Artifact} | {Action} | {By} | {Date} | {Notes}
## Quality Gate: PBI Ready for Development
**PBI:** {PBI-ID}
**Reviewer:** {Name}
**Date:** {Date}
### Requirements
- [ ] Clear problem statement
- [ ] User value articulated
- [ ] Acceptance criteria in GIVEN/WHEN/THEN format
- [ ] Out of scope explicitly listed
### Design
- [ ] Design spec approved (if UI changes)
- [ ] API contract defined (if backend changes)
- [ ] Database changes documented (if applicable)
### Dependencies
- [ ] Upstream dependencies identified
- [ ] No blocking dependencies
- [ ] Integration points documented
### Gate Status: PASS / FAIL / CONDITIONAL
**Notes:**
{Any concerns or conditions}
## Quality Gate: Ready for QA (Dev → QA)
**Feature/PBI:** {Reference}
**Reviewer:** {Name}
**Date:** {Date}
### Readiness
- [ ] All acceptance criteria implemented
- [ ] Unit tests passing
- [ ] Code review complete
- [ ] No known critical bugs
- [ ] Test data prepared
### Gate Status: PASS / FAIL / CONDITIONAL
**Notes:**
{Any concerns or conditions}
/production-readiness-review and /performance-review## Quality Gate: Ready for Release
**Feature:** {Feature name}
**Release:** {Version}
**Date:** {Date}
### Testing
- [ ] All test cases executed
- [ ] Pass rate: \_\_\_\_%
- [ ] No open P1 bugs
- [ ] No open P2 bugs (or exceptions approved)
### Code Quality
- [ ] Code review approved
- [ ] Mutation score meets target; surviving mutants triaged (line-coverage reported as a diagnostic only, no threshold)
- [ ] No security vulnerabilities
- [ ] Performance benchmarks met
### Documentation
- [ ] User documentation updated
- [ ] API documentation current
- [ ] Release notes drafted
### Sign-Offs
- [ ] QA Lead: **\*\***\_**\*\*** Date: **\_\_\_**
- [ ] Dev Lead: **\*\***\_**\*\*** Date: **\_\_\_**
- [ ] PO: **\*\*\*\***\_\_**\*\*\*\*** Date: **\_\_\_**
### Gate Status: PASS / FAIL
**Release Decision:**
{Go / No-Go with notes}
When user runs /quality-gate {artifact-or-pr}:
## Quality Metrics - Sprint {N}
### Code Quality
| Metric | Target | Actual | Trend |
| -------------- | --------------- | ------ | ----- |
| Mutation score | meets target | | ↑↓→ |
| Line coverage | diagnostic only | | ↑↓→ |
| Complexity | <15 | | |
| Duplication | <5% | | |
| Debt Ratio | <10% | | |
### Process Quality
| Metric | Target | Actual |
| ----------------- | ------ | ------ |
| Defect Escape | <5% | |
| First-Time-Right | >90% | |
| Avg Review Cycles | <2 | |
### Defect Trends
| Sprint | Found | Fixed | Escaped |
| ------ | ----- | ----- | ------- |
| N-2 | | | |
| N-1 | | | |
| N | | | |
{YYMMDD}-qc-gate-{stage}-{slug}.md
{YYMMDD}-qc-audit-{feature}.md
{YYMMDD}-qc-metrics-sprint-{n}.md
Before completing QC artifacts:
speccode-review[IMPORTANT] Use
TaskCreateto break ALL work into small tasks BEFORE starting — including tasks for each file read. This prevents context loss from long files. For simple tasks, AI MUST ATTENTION ask user whether to skip.
docs/project-reference/domain-entities-reference.md — Domain entity catalog, relationships, cross-service sync (read when task involves business entities/models)AI Mistake Prevention — Failure modes to avoid on every task:
Re-read files after context changes. Context compaction, resume, or long-running work can make memory stale; verify current files before acting. Verify generated content against source evidence. AI hallucinates APIs, names, claims, and document facts. Check the relevant source before documenting or referencing. Check downstream references before deleting or renaming. Removing an artifact can stale docs, generated mirrors, configs, and callers; map references first. Trace the full impact chain after edits. Changing a definition can miss derived outputs and consumers. Follow the affected chain before declaring done. Verify ALL affected outputs, not just the first. One green check is not all green checks; validate every output surface the change can affect. Assume existing values are intentional — ask WHY before changing. Before changing a constant, limit, flag, wording, or pattern, read nearby context and history. Surface ambiguity before acting — don't pick silently. Multiple valid interpretations require an explicit question or stated assumption with risk. Keep shared guidance role-relevant. Universal guidance must help every receiving skill or agent; code-specific obligations belong only in code-specific protocols.
Critical Thinking Mindset — Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act. Anti-hallucination: Never present guess as fact — cite sources for every claim, admit uncertainty freely, self-check output for errors, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence — certainty without evidence root of all hallucination.
Sequential Thinking Protocol — Structured multi-step reasoning for complex/ambiguous work. Use when planning, reviewing, debugging, or refining ideas where one-shot reasoning is unsafe.
Trigger when: complex problem decomposition · adaptive plans needing revision · analysis with course correction · unclear/emerging scope · multi-step solutions · hypothesis-driven debugging · cross-cutting trade-off evaluation.
Format (explicit mode — visible thought trail):
Thought N/M: [aspect]— one aspect per thought, state assumptions/uncertaintyThought N/M [REVISION of Thought K]: ...— when prior reasoning invalidated; state Original / Why revised / ImpactThought N/M [BRANCH A from Thought K]: ...— explore alternative; converge with decision rationaleThought N/M [HYPOTHESIS]: ...then[VERIFICATION]: ...— test before actingThought N/N [FINAL]— only when verified, all critical aspects addressed, confidence >80%Mandatory closers: Confidence % stated · Assumptions listed · Open questions surfaced · Next action concrete.
Stop conditions: confidence <80% on any critical decision → escalate via AskUserQuestion · ≥3 revisions on same thought → re-frame the problem · branch count >3 → split into sub-task.
Implicit mode: apply methodology internally without visible markers when adding markers would clutter the response (routine work where reasoning aids accuracy).
Deep-dive: see
/sequential-thinkingskill (.claude/skills/sequential-thinking/SKILL.md) for worked examples (API design, debugging, architecture), advanced techniques (spiral refinement, hypothesis testing, convergence), and meta-strategies (uncertainty handling, revision cascades).
MUST ATTENTION apply critical + sequential thinking — every claim needs appropriate traced evidence (file:line for repo/code claims; source URL or artifact section for research, product, content, and docs claims); confidence >80% to act, <60% DO NOT recommend. Anti-hallucination: never present guess as fact, admit uncertainty freely, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence.
MUST ATTENTION apply sequential-thinking — multi-step Thought N/M, REVISION/BRANCH/HYPOTHESIS markers, confidence % closer; see /sequential-thinking skill.
MUST ATTENTION apply AI mistake prevention — verify generated content against evidence, trace downstream references before deleting or renaming, verify all affected outputs, re-read files after context loss, and surface ambiguity before acting.
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION Goal: Enforce quality gates, verify compliance with standards, track quality metrics, and generate audit trails across the development lifecycle.
Protocols in force (concise digest of the SYNC/shared blocks this skill carries):
file:line proof per claim; confidence >80% to act.IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION break work into small todo tasks using TaskCreate BEFORE starting
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION search codebase for 3+ similar patterns before creating new code
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION cite file:line evidence for every claim (confidence >80% to act)
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION add a final review todo task to verify work quality
[TASK-PLANNING] Before acting, analyze task scope and systematically break it into small todo tasks and sub-tasks using TaskCreate.