Our review
Runs five parallel AI agents to review code changes against quality criteria, requiring all to pass before commit.
Strengths
- Comprehensive multi-perspective review (code style, simplicity, consistency, robustness, scope)
- Parallel execution for efficiency
- Clear pass/fail verdicts with issue lists
Limitations
- Requires a git diff against main
- Dependent on model quality (sonnet/haiku)
- Large diffs may need file-by-file processing
- Cannot enforce fixes automatically
Use before committing changes to ensure code quality and catch issues early.
Do not use for initial drafts or exploratory work where perfection is not expected.
Security analysis
SafeThe skill only uses safe Bash commands (git diff, git diff --name-only) and reads files for context. No destructive or exfiltrating actions. No obfuscation or disabling of safety. It spawns internal review agents via Task, which is legitimate for a quality gate.
No concerns found
Examples
/qc/qc "Adding user authentication feature"Run quality gate on the current branch compared to main.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.
Next.js App Router Expert
Development
A skill that turns Claude into a Next.js App Router expert.
README Generator
Development
Creates professional and comprehensive README.md files for your projects.
API Documentation Writer
Development
Generates comprehensive API documentation in OpenAPI/Swagger format.