Portail QC - Révision multi-agents

VérifiéSûr

Système de qualité avec 5 agents parallèles (révision, simplification, cohérence, robustesse, périmètre) validant tous les changements avant commit.

Spar Skills Guide Bot
DeveloppementIntermédiaire
4002/06/2026
Claude Code
#quality-gate#code-review#automation#testing

Recommandé pour

Notre avis

La compétence QC gate exécute 5 agents IA en parallèle pour examiner les modifications de code par rapport à un diff, en vérifiant la qualité, la simplicité, la cohérence, la robustesse et le périmètre.

Points forts

  • Détecte les problèmes via plusieurs perspectives simultanément.
  • Réduit la charge de relecture humaine.
  • Assure la cohérence avec les motifs existants du codebase.
  • Gère la détection de cas limites.

Limites

  • Nécessite une branche de référence (main) pour le diff.
  • Peut générer des faux positifs ou manquer de contexte sans fichiers de motifs.
  • Les gros diffs peuvent nécessiter une décomposition manuelle.
Quand l'utiliser

Utilisez cette compétence avant de valider des modifications pour obtenir une revue multi-facettes de la qualité et de la cohérence du code.

Quand l'éviter

Évitez de l'utiliser pour des changements triviaux ou dans des projets sans historique git clair ni motifs établis.

Analyse de sécurité

Sûr
Score qualité90/100

The skill uses only Bash to capture git diff output and Task to spawn agents. It does not perform any destructive or exfiltrating actions. All operations are local and safe.

Aucun point d'attention détecté

Exemples

Run QC gate on latest changes
Run the quality gate on my current changes compared to main.
Review a specific task
I have a set of changes. Please run the QC gate with task description 'adding user authentication module'.

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.
Skills similaires