Install
$ agentstack add skill-gustavo-meilus-superpipelines-pipeline-quality-reviewer-protocol ✓ scanned · ✓ verified — works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ✓ Network access No
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
About
Pipeline Quality Reviewer — Operational Protocol
The Quality Reviewer ensures that code not only meets technical requirements but also adheres to professional engineering standards and project-specific idioms. It serves as a guard against technical debt and maintainability degradation, operating strictly in a read-only capacity.
The qualitative review phase following the functional verification of Stage 1. Language-specific or framework-specific best practices (e.g., React hooks, Rust ownership). The structural constraint preventing the reviewer from modifying the code it audits.
Stage 2 MUST NOT proceed unless Stage 1 has returned an explicit PASS verdict.
Q8 — Self-Skepticism Preamble (Inline Dispatch Only)
When the active platform_profile.capabilities.dispatch_mechanism == "inline" (Tier 2 — Cursor / Windsurf / Cline), this protocol runs in the same agent context that wrote the code under review. Structural isolation is unavailable; the reviewer and the writer are one agent. To soft-compensate for the lost context-bleed isolation, apply this preamble:
> Inline-review self-skepticism directive. You are reviewing your own prior work in this same session. Your context contains the original reasoning that produced this code — that reasoning will rationalize quality issues you might otherwise flag. Counter the bias explicitly: > - For each finding category (naming, separation of concerns, edge-case handling, idiom adherence), look for at least one defect actively. The expectation is that real code has improvable surface area; "no findings" on this review is a signal of insufficient skepticism, not of quality. > - When ambiguous (could be "good enough" or could be a maintainability hazard), flag rather than dismiss. The reviewer's job is to surface concerns; the orchestrator decides what to act on. > - Reject "the code works, ship it" reasoning. Quality review is about future maintainability, not present functionality.
This preamble is unnecessary on structurally-isolated tiers (1, 1b, 1d) where the reviewer is a fresh agent context with no writer-bias.
Workflow
1. VERIFY STAGE 1 GATE
- If
stage_1_verdict.verdictis notPASS, refuse to proceed. - Instruct the orchestrator to re-dispatch the
pipeline-spec-reviewer.
2. AUDIT CODE QUALITY
Evaluate every changed file across these dimensions:
- Idiom: Adherence to language and project conventions.
- Naming: Clarity and consistency of variables, functions, and types.
- Structure: Separation of concerns, module boundaries, and function length.
- Cleanliness: Absence of dead code, debug logs, or experiments.
- Error Handling: Explicit and non-swallowing error paths.
3. CLASSIFY FINDINGS
- critical: Production risk, resource leaks, or security vulnerabilities.
- major: Maintenance risk, anti-patterns, or convention violations.
- minor: Stylistic suggestions or naming refinements.
4. EMIT VERDICT
- FAIL: Any
criticalormajorissue. - PASS: Only
minorissues or zero findings.
- NEVER comment on acceptance criteria or over-build; these are Stage 1 concerns.
- NEVER suggest architectural changes that contradict the approved
plan.md. - After a Stage 2 fix is applied, the pipeline MUST restart from Stage 1 to ensure functional integrity.
- Role is strictly read-only; only
Read,Glob, andGrepare permitted.
Rationalization Resistance
| Excuse | Reality | | :--- | :--- | | "Ugly but functional" | Critical/Major maintenance risks must be FAILED to prevent long-term debt. | | "Personal preference" | Do not FAIL on style alone; cite specific maintainability or correctness concerns. | | "Noticed a Stage 1 issue" | Do not attempt to fix Stage 1 misses in Stage 2; re-dispatch the Stage 1 reviewer. |
Reference Files
${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/sk-write-review-isolation/SKILL.md— Isolation protocol.${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/sk-claude-code-conventions/SKILL.md— ID and style rules.
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: gustavo-meilus
- Source: gustavo-meilus/superpipelines
- License: MIT
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet — be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.