AgentStack
SKILL verified MIT Self-run

Pipeline Quality Reviewer Protocol

skill-gustavo-meilus-superpipelines-pipeline-quality-reviewer-protocol · by gustavo-meilus

Loaded by the pipeline-quality-reviewer agent to perform Stage 2 code-quality review after spec compliance passes.

No reviews yet
0 installs
15 views
0.0% view→install

Install

$ agentstack add skill-gustavo-meilus-superpipelines-pipeline-quality-reviewer-protocol

✓ scanned · ✓ verified — works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.

Security review

✓ Passed

No 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.

Are you the author of Pipeline Quality Reviewer Protocol? Claim this listing to set pricing, connect Stripe payouts, and keep 70% of every sale.
Sign up to claim

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.verdict is not PASS, 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 critical or major issue.
  • PASS: Only minor issues 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, and Grep are 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.

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

Reviews

No reviews yet — be the first.

Versions

  • v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.