mcpField
Q
quality-assurance

quality-assurance

github.com/axrossTesting & quality143 installsUpdated 2d ago
Repository

About quality-assurance

quality-assurance is a reviewer skill for judging whether a change has adequate verification evidence before merge. It covers test claims, lint and format gates, and manual checks against the changed output surfaces.

Key features

  1. 01Assess verification evidence and test claims
  2. 02Check lint and format gate evidence
  3. 03Review manual checks for changed surfaces
  4. 04Evaluate skips and residual risk
  5. 05Check second-pass verification after major fixes

Use cases

  1. 01Review verification evidence before merge
  2. 02Assess whether test claims match recorded results
  3. 03Check manual coverage of changed UI or routes
  4. 04Review required-check skips and remaining risk

Install

Copy the command and run it in a terminal.

$npx skills add https://github.com/axross/skills --skill quality-assurance

After installing, type/quality-assurancein Claude Code to confirm it loaded.

Bundled files

References and scripts installed along with SKILL.md.

references/
lint-and-format-gate.md
manual-verification.md
verification-evidence.md

Details

From the project README

Quality Assurance

Use this capability to judge whether a change has been adequately verified before merge. This is the reviewer's lens — flag missing evidence within the applicable review finding scope and link to the developer-facing rule rather than re-deriving it.

The severity labels used throughout (Critical, Major, Minor) are owned by the project's review severity model; consult it for each tier's definition, fixed floors, and verdict mapping.

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.

Verification Evidence

See verification-evidence.md for:

  • Assessing missing verification under the review finding scope, without waiving contributor verification
  • Assessing tests pass or tested manually claims against commands or routes, exit status, and relevant output
  • The evidence-adequacy decision flow, keeping reasoned skips accounted for but unverified
  • Separating skill acquisition from integrated-output conformity without positive external-review attestations
  • Assessing relevance and currency against the claimed obligation, material, platform and observed stage
  • Assessing a green check's unique behavioral coverage, whether its result could have differed, and fixture or harness failures that make a check carry no information
  • Manual checks matched to changed output surfaces
  • Assessing skip reasons for required checks and their residual risk
  • Assessing second-pass verification after fixing Critical or Major findings

Lint and Format Gate

See lint-and-format-gate.md for:

  • The author ran the format and lint commands per the project's code-quality rules
  • A diff touching the gate's own configuration, hooks, or CI workflows, and the evidence that the gate still catches violations
  • No new inline linter suppressions without an inline justification
  • Judging introduced lint errors, new warnings in modified files, or new inline suppressions or escape-hatch casts

Manual Verification Evidence

See manual-verification.md for:

  • Judging a data-driven surface, route, or running app output that passing commands do not exercise as a human would see it
  • The author exercised non-default content states when the change touches a data-driven surface
  • The not-found UI was verified for routing changes
  • The dev-server output was checked for new warnings or errors

Comments

Markdown supported