一键导入
pipeline-quality-reviewer-protocol
Loaded by the pipeline-quality-reviewer agent to perform Stage 2 code-quality review after spec compliance passes.
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。
菜单
Loaded by the pipeline-quality-reviewer agent to perform Stage 2 code-quality review after spec compliance passes.
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。
基于 SOC 职业分类
Cut a Superpipelines version release (vX.Y.Z) — verify the 5 version targets agree, draft CHANGELOG + RELEASE-NOTES entries, land them via PR (main is branch-protected), then create the GitHub release + tag and verify. Use when the user asks to cut/ship/publish a release, tag a version, do release work, or write release notes for Superpipelines.
Resolves agent `model_tier:` declarations into concrete platform-specific model strings and effort values via a 5-layer precedence chain, returning a serializable `resolved` object for dispatch. Use when `running-a-pipeline` Phase 0.45 needs to determine the concrete model + effort for each pipeline step on the active platform before dispatch.
Resolves the active runtime tier and provides the canonical DISPATCH contract for all pipeline step execution. Use when an orchestrator skill needs to dispatch pipeline steps — performs tier detection, loads the platform profile, and executes the Tier 2 inline loop when no subagent primitive is available.
Cut a Superpipelines version release (vX.Y.Z) — verify the 5 version targets agree, draft CHANGELOG + RELEASE-NOTES entries, land them via PR (main is branch-protected), then create the GitHub release + tag and verify. Use when the user asks to cut/ship/publish a release, tag a version, do release work, or write release notes for Superpipelines.
Run, resume, or list installed Superpipelines workflows from the registry.
Provides canonical engineering standards for authoring agents, skills, hooks, and pipeline orchestration in Claude Code. Use when authoring or modifying agents, skills, hooks, or pipeline-orchestration artifacts — covers model-tier selection, prompt-cache discipline, frontmatter schemas, and progressive-disclosure rules.
| name | pipeline-quality-reviewer-protocol |
| description | Loaded by the pipeline-quality-reviewer agent to perform Stage 2 code-quality review after spec compliance passes. |
| disable-model-invocation | true |
| user-invocable | false |
When the active platform_profile.capabilities.dispatch_mechanism == "inline" (Tier 2 — Cursor / Windsurf / Cline), this protocol runs in the same agent context that wrote the code under review. Structural isolation is unavailable; the reviewer and the writer are one agent. To soft-compensate for the lost context-bleed isolation, apply this preamble:
Inline-review self-skepticism directive. You are reviewing your own prior work in this same session. Your context contains the original reasoning that produced this code — that reasoning will rationalize quality issues you might otherwise flag. Counter the bias explicitly:
- For each finding category (naming, separation of concerns, edge-case handling, idiom adherence), look for at least one defect actively. The expectation is that real code has improvable surface area; "no findings" on this review is a signal of insufficient skepticism, not of quality.
- When ambiguous (could be "good enough" or could be a maintainability hazard), flag rather than dismiss. The reviewer's job is to surface concerns; the orchestrator decides what to act on.
- Reject "the code works, ship it" reasoning. Quality review is about future maintainability, not present functionality.
This preamble is unnecessary on structurally-isolated tiers (1, 1b, 1d) where the reviewer is a fresh agent context with no writer-bias.
Evaluate every changed file across these dimensions:
critical or major issue.minor issues or zero findings.
<rationalization_table>
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "Ugly but functional" | Critical/Major maintenance risks must be FAILED to prevent long-term debt. |
| "Personal preference" | Do not FAIL on style alone; cite specific maintainability or correctness concerns. |
| "Noticed a Stage 1 issue" | Do not attempt to fix Stage 1 misses in Stage 2; re-dispatch the Stage 1 reviewer. |
| </rationalization_table> |
${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/sk-write-review-isolation/SKILL.md — Isolation protocol.${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/sk-claude-code-conventions/SKILL.md — ID and style rules.