Notre avis

Exécute un contrôle qualité multi-agents qui effectue une revue de code, une simplification, une vérification de cohérence, de robustesse et de périmètre sur un diff Git.

Points forts

Revue complète sous plusieurs angles simultanément
Exécution parallèle pour gagner du temps
Impose la cohérence avec le codebase existant
Automatise les contrôles de qualité avant validation

Limites

Nécessite un diff Git par rapport à la branche main
Peut générer des faux positifs nécessitant vérification humaine
Coûteux en appels de modèles (5 agents en parallèle)

Quand l'utiliser

À utiliser avant chaque commit ou merge pour s'assurer que les modifications respectent les standards de qualité.

Quand l'éviter

Ne pas utiliser pour du code exploratoire ou des brouillons où les critères stricts ne sont pas encore applicables.

Exemples

Full quality gate on current diff

Run quality gate on the current changes against main branch.

With task description

Execute /qc with task description 'Add user authentication' and include pattern files from the same directory.

Re-run on failing gate

/qc - the last review failed on robustness, please run again after fixing the edge case.

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.

Portail QC - Contrôle qualité parallèle

Recommandé pour