Our review

Runs five parallel review agents (code quality, simplification, consistency, robustness, scope) on a Git diff to validate changes before merging.

Strengths

Comprehensive multi-perspective analysis in one pass
Catches dead code, overcomplexity, and regression risks early
Returns structured JSON for easy integration into CI/CD

Limitations

Requires a clean main branch diff context
High token consumption for large diffs (over 500 lines)
May miss issues if agent prompts are not tuned to the codebase

When to use it

Use this skill before merging feature branches to ensure code quality and consistency across the team.

When not to use it

Avoid for emergency fixes or trivial changes where speed is critical and deep review adds little value.

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.

QC Quality Gate

Recommended for