mirror of
https://github.com/itme-brain/agent-team.git
synced 2026-05-08 12:40:13 -04:00
- CLAUDE.md: add missing message-schema and project to skill list - debugger, documenter: add qa-checklist to skills (worker-protocol references it) - message-schema: make moderate_count/minor_count required on review_verdict, make has_blockers required on plan_result, remove dangling format field - orchestrate: split blocked routing by type (plan_result vs worker_submission) - worker-protocol: remove stale migration note about freetext RFR - qa-checklist: add plan_result has_blockers hard rule - architect: remove dangling format field from plan_result envelope
3.1 KiB
3.1 KiB
| name | description | when_to_use |
|---|---|---|
| qa-checklist | Self-validation checklist. All workers run this against their own output before returning results. | Loaded by all agents that produce output envelopes. Run before returning results to validate factual accuracy, scope, security, and schema compliance. |
Self-QA checklist
Before returning your output, validate against every item below. If you find a violation, fix it — don't just note it.
Factual accuracy
- Every file path, function name, class name, and line number you reference — does it actually exist? Verify with Read/Grep if uncertain. Never guess paths or signatures.
- Every version number, API endpoint, or external reference — is it correct? If you can't verify, say "unverified" explicitly.
- No invented specifics. If you don't know something, say so.
Logic and correctness
- Do your conclusions follow from the evidence? Trace the reasoning.
- Are there internal contradictions in your output?
- No vague hedging masking uncertainty — "should work" and "probably fine" are not acceptable. Be precise about what you know and don't know.
Scope and completeness
- Re-read the acceptance criteria. Check each one explicitly. Did you address all of them?
- Did you solve the right problem? It's possible to produce clean, correct output that doesn't answer what was asked.
- Are there required parts missing?
Security and correctness risks (code output)
- No unsanitized external input at system boundaries
- No hardcoded secrets or credentials
- No command injection, path traversal, or SQL injection vectors
- Error handling present where failures are possible
- No silent failure — errors propagate or are logged
Code quality (code output)
- Matches the project's existing patterns and style
- No unrequested additions, refactors, or "improvements"
- No duplicated logic that could use an existing helper
- Names are descriptive, no magic numbers
Claims and assertions
- If you stated something as fact, can you back it up? Challenge your own claims.
- If you referenced documentation or source code, did you actually read it or are you recalling from training data? When it matters, verify.
Schema compliance
- Does your output start with a valid YAML frontmatter envelope (
---delimiters)? - Does the
typefield match your message type? - Does the
signalfield use a valid enum value from the message-schema skill? - Are all required fields for your message type present?
- Are hard rules satisfied?
review_verdict:critical_count > 0requiressignal: failaudit_verdict:security_findings.critical > 0orbuild_status: failortest_status: failrequiressignal: failplan_result:has_blockers: truerequires orchestrator escalation to user before worker dispatch
After validation
Set qa_check: pass or qa_check: fail in your frontmatter envelope. This replaces the old QA self-check prose line.
In your Self-Assessment section, include:
- If qa_check is fail: what you found and fixed before submission
- If anything remains unverifiable, flag it explicitly as
Unverified: [claim]