EasyPlatform qc-specialist
[Project Management] Enforce quality gates, verify compliance with standards, track quality metrics, and generate audit trails. Triggers: quality gate, compliance, audit trail, quality metrics, qc specialist, standards verification.
git clone https://github.com/duc01226/EasyPlatform
T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/duc01226/EasyPlatform "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/.claude/skills/qc-specialist" ~/.claude/skills/duc01226-easyplatform-qc-specialist && rm -rf "$T"
.claude/skills/qc-specialist/SKILL.md<!-- SYNC:critical-thinking-mindset -->[IMPORTANT] Use
to break ALL work into small tasks BEFORE starting — including tasks for each file read. This prevents context loss from long files. For simple tasks, AI MUST ATTENTION ask user whether to skip.TaskCreate
<!-- /SYNC:critical-thinking-mindset --> <!-- SYNC:ai-mistake-prevention -->Critical Thinking Mindset — Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act. Anti-hallucination: Never present guess as fact — cite sources for every claim, admit uncertainty freely, self-check output for errors, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence — certainty without evidence root of all hallucination.
<!-- /SYNC:ai-mistake-prevention -->AI Mistake Prevention — Failure modes to avoid on every task:
- Check downstream references before deleting. Deleting components causes documentation and code staleness cascades. Map all referencing files before removal.
- Verify AI-generated content against actual code. AI hallucinates APIs, class names, and method signatures. Always grep to confirm existence before documenting or referencing.
- Trace full dependency chain after edits. Changing a definition misses downstream variables and consumers derived from it. Always trace the full chain.
- Trace ALL code paths when verifying correctness. Confirming code exists is not confirming it executes. Always trace early exits, error branches, and conditional skips — not just happy path.
- When debugging, ask "whose responsibility?" before fixing. Trace whether bug is in caller (wrong data) or callee (wrong handling). Fix at responsible layer — never patch symptom site.
- Assume existing values are intentional — ask WHY before changing. Before changing any constant, limit, flag, or pattern: read comments, check git blame, examine surrounding code.
- Verify ALL affected outputs, not just the first. Changes touching multiple stacks require verifying EVERY output. One green check is not all green checks.
- Holistic-first debugging — resist nearest-attention trap. When investigating any failure, list EVERY precondition first (config, env vars, DB names, endpoints, DI registrations, data preconditions), then verify each against evidence before forming any code-layer hypothesis.
- Surgical changes — apply the diff test. Bug fix: every changed line must trace directly to the bug. Don't restyle or improve adjacent code. Enhancement task: implement improvements AND announce them explicitly.
- Surface ambiguity before coding — don't pick silently. If request has multiple interpretations, present each with effort estimate and ask. Never assume all-records, file-based, or more complex path.
— Domain entity catalog, relationships, cross-service sync (read when task involves business entities/models) (content auto-injected by hook — check for [Injected: ...] header before reading)docs/project-reference/domain-entities-reference.md
Quick Summary
Goal: Enforce quality gates, verify compliance with standards, and track quality metrics across the development lifecycle.
Workflow:
- Identify Gate — Determine which quality gate applies (Idea>PBI, PBI>Dev, Dev>QA, QA>Release)
- Verify Checklist — Run through pass/fail criteria for the gate stage
- Generate Report — Produce PASS/FAIL/CONDITIONAL gate status with evidence
- Track Metrics — Log in audit trail and update quality metrics dashboard
Key Rules:
- Every gate must have a clear PASS/FAIL/CONDITIONAL status
- Evidence must be provided for critical checklist items
- Sign-offs are required before release gates can pass
Be skeptical. Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence percentages (Idea should be more than 80%).
QC Specialist Assistant
Help QC Specialists enforce quality gates, verify compliance with standards, and track quality metrics across the development lifecycle.
Core Capabilities
1. Quality Gates
Define pass/fail criteria at each stage:
Gate: Idea → PBI
- Problem statement present
- Business value articulated
- No technical solution prescribed
- Target users identified
Gate: PBI → Development
- Acceptance criteria in GIVEN/WHEN/THEN
- Out of scope defined
- Dependencies identified
- Design approved (if applicable)
Gate: Development → QA
- Code review approved
- Unit tests >80% coverage
- No P1/P2 linting errors
- Documentation updated
Gate: QA → Release
- All test cases executed
- No open P1/P2 bugs
- Regression suite passed
- PO sign-off received
2. Compliance Verification
- Code follows architecture patterns
- Security requirements met
- Accessibility standards (WCAG 2.1 AA)
- Performance benchmarks
3. Audit Trail
Track artifact lifecycle:
{Artifact} | {Action} | {By} | {Date} | {Notes}
4. Quality Metrics
Code Quality
- Cyclomatic complexity
- Code coverage %
- Technical debt ratio
- Duplication %
Process Quality
- Defect escape rate
- First-time-right %
- Cycle time
- Lead time
Quality Gate Checklists
Pre-Development Checklist
## Quality Gate: PBI Ready for Development **PBI:** {PBI-ID} **Reviewer:** {Name} **Date:** {Date} ### Requirements - [ ] Clear problem statement - [ ] User value articulated - [ ] Acceptance criteria in GIVEN/WHEN/THEN format - [ ] Out of scope explicitly listed ### Design - [ ] Design spec approved (if UI changes) - [ ] API contract defined (if backend changes) - [ ] Database changes documented (if applicable) ### Dependencies - [ ] Upstream dependencies identified - [ ] No blocking dependencies - [ ] Integration points documented ### Gate Status: PASS / FAIL / CONDITIONAL **Notes:** {Any concerns or conditions}
Pre-Release Checklist
## Quality Gate: Ready for Release **Feature:** {Feature name} **Release:** {Version} **Date:** {Date} ### Testing - [ ] All test cases executed - [ ] Pass rate: \_\_\_\_% - [ ] No open P1 bugs - [ ] No open P2 bugs (or exceptions approved) ### Code Quality - [ ] Code review approved - [ ] Coverage > 80% - [ ] No security vulnerabilities - [ ] Performance benchmarks met ### Documentation - [ ] User documentation updated - [ ] API documentation current - [ ] Release notes drafted ### Sign-Offs - [ ] QA Lead: **\*\***\_**\*\*** Date: **\_\_\_** - [ ] Dev Lead: **\*\***\_**\*\*** Date: **\_\_\_** - [ ] PO: **\*\*\*\***\_\_**\*\*\*\*** Date: **\_\_\_** ### Gate Status: PASS / FAIL **Release Decision:** {Go / No-Go with notes}
Workflow Integration
Running Quality Gate
When user runs
/quality-gate {artifact-or-pr}:
- Identify gate type based on artifact/stage
- Load appropriate checklist
- Verify each criterion
- Generate pass/fail report
- Log in audit trail
Metrics Dashboard Template
## Quality Metrics - Sprint {N} ### Code Quality | Metric | Target | Actual | Trend | | ----------- | ------ | ------ | ----- | | Coverage | >80% | | ↑↓→ | | Complexity | <15 | | | | Duplication | <5% | | | | Debt Ratio | <10% | | | ### Process Quality | Metric | Target | Actual | | ----------------- | ------ | ------ | | Defect Escape | <5% | | | First-Time-Right | >90% | | | Avg Review Cycles | <2 | | ### Defect Trends | Sprint | Found | Fixed | Escaped | | ------ | ----- | ----- | ------- | | N-2 | | | | | N-1 | | | | | N | | | |
Output Conventions
File Naming
{YYMMDD}-qc-gate-{stage}-{slug}.md {YYMMDD}-qc-audit-{feature}.md {YYMMDD}-qc-metrics-sprint-{n}.md
Quality Checklist
Before completing QC artifacts:
- All checklist items verified
- Evidence provided for critical items
- Sign-offs captured
- Gate status clearly stated
- Audit trail updated
Related
test-speccode-review
Closing Reminders
- IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION break work into small todo tasks using
BEFORE startingTaskCreate - IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION search codebase for 3+ similar patterns before creating new code
- IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION cite
evidence for every claim (confidence >80% to act)file:line - IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION add a final review todo task to verify work quality <!-- SYNC:critical-thinking-mindset:reminder -->
- MUST ATTENTION apply critical thinking — every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act. Anti-hallucination: never present guess as fact. <!-- /SYNC:critical-thinking-mindset:reminder --> <!-- SYNC:ai-mistake-prevention:reminder -->
- MUST ATTENTION apply AI mistake prevention — holistic-first debugging, fix at responsible layer, surface ambiguity before coding, re-read files after compaction. <!-- /SYNC:ai-mistake-prevention:reminder -->