Our review

A quality gate that spawns five parallel AI agents to review code changes and requires all to pass before merging.

Strengths

Simultaneous review from multiple perspectives (code review, simplification, consistency, robustness, scope).
Structured JSON feedback with clear pass/fail verdict and issue list.
Handles large diffs by breaking simplification file-by-file.
Reduces false negatives with retry on invalid JSON.

Limitations

Heavily dependent on the quality of underlying AI models (sonnet and haiku).
May miss broader context if the diff is complex or poorly described.
Requires initial setup (base branch, diff retrieval).

When to use it

Before every commit or merge to ensure changes meet project quality standards.

When not to use it

For trivial changes or rapid prototyping where thorough review would be counterproductive.

name: qc description: Quality gate. 5 parallel agents review changes. All must pass. allowed-tools: Task, Bash, Read, Grep, Glob

QC Gate

Setup

DIFF=$(git diff main)
FILES=$(git diff main --name-only)
TASK="{task description or 'general changes'}"

Read 1-2 unmodified files from same directories for pattern context.

Agents

Spawn all 5 in parallel. All output raw JSON only, no markdown.

1: Code Review (sonnet)

DIFF: ${DIFF}

- Descriptive naming?
- Errors caught with useful messages?
- No hardcoded values, commented code, debug statements?
- No TODO without ticket ref?
- No obvious bugs?
- No useless comments?

{"pass": bool, "issues": [...]}

2: Simplification (sonnet)

DIFF: ${DIFF}

- Is this overcomplicated? Can I solve the same problem in a simpler manner?
- Can I reduce indirection?
- Can I reduce surface area?
- Premature abstraction? Premature Optimization? YAGNI violations?
- Dead code?
- Three similar lines > one abstraction

{"pass": bool, "issues": [...]}

3: Consistency (sonnet)

DIFF: ${DIFF}
PATTERNS: ${PATTERN_FILES}

- Matches existing codebase patterns?
- Proper types, no any, no unsafe casts?
- Idiomatic error handling?
- Changes internally consistent?
- Is logic isolated and composable?
- Are there existing tests if neccesary?

{"pass": bool, "issues": [...]}

4: Robustness (sonnet)

TASK: ${TASK}
DIFF: ${DIFF}

- Actually solves the problem?
- Edge cases: empty, null, zero, negative, boundaries, concurrency?
- Regression risk: changed signatures, shared state, removed exports?
- Maintains API contracts?

{"pass": bool, "issues": [...]}

5: Scope (haiku)

TASK: ${TASK}
FILES: ${FILES}
DIFF: ${DIFF}

- Solved the problem or just the symptom?
- Changes unrelated to task?
- Unnecessary refactoring?

{"pass": bool, "issues": [...]}

Results

| Check | Verdict | Issues | |-------|---------|--------| | Code Review | ✓/✗ | ... | | Simplification | ✓/✗ | ... | | Consistency | ✓/✗ | ... | | Robustness | ✓/✗ | ... | | Scope | ✓/✗ | ... |

ALL PASS: Ready to commit.

ANY FAIL: List issues, fix them, run /qc again.

Same issue 3x: Escalate to user.

Notes

Invalid JSON? Retry once. Still broken? Mark fail.
Large diffs (>500 lines): run simplification file-by-file.

Automated QC Gate

Recommended for