Notre avis
Exécute cinq agents d'IA en parallèle pour examiner les modifications du code selon des critères de qualité, exigeant que tous réussissent avant le commit.
Points forts
- Revue multicritères complète (style, simplicité, cohérence, robustesse, périmètre)
- Exécution parallèle efficace
- Verdicts clairs avec listes de problèmes
Limites
- Nécessite un diff git par rapport à main
- Dépend de la qualité du modèle (sonnet/haiku)
- Les grands diffs peuvent nécessiter un traitement fichier par fichier
- Ne peut pas appliquer les corrections automatiquement
À utiliser avant de valider des modifications pour garantir la qualité du code et détecter les problèmes tôt.
Ne pas utiliser pour les premières ébauches ou le travail exploratoire où la perfection n'est pas attendue.
Analyse de sécurité
SûrThe 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.
Aucun point d'attention détecté
Exemples
/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.
Expert Next.js App Router
Developpement
Un skill qui transforme Claude en expert Next.js App Router.
Générateur de README
Developpement
Crée des README.md professionnels et complets pour vos projets.
Rédacteur de Documentation API
Developpement
Génère de la documentation API complète au format OpenAPI/Swagger.