Pipeline quality reviewer protocol
Skill gustavo-meilus/superpipelines/plugins/superpipelines/skills/pipeline-quality-reviewer-protocol
Loaded by the pipeline-quality-reviewer agent to perform Stage 2 code-quality review after spec compliance passes.From its SKILL.md
npx -y skills add gustavo-meilus/superpipelines --skill pipeline-quality-reviewer-protocolAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 4 stars4 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
SKILL.md
4.4 KB, 974 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
Pipeline Quality Reviewer — Operational Protocol
<overview> 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. </overview> <glossary> <term name="Stage 2">The qualitative review phase following the functional verification of Stage 1.</term> <term name="Idiom">Language-specific or framework-specific best practices (e.g., React hooks, Rust ownership).</term> <term name="Write/Review Isolation">The structural constraint preventing the reviewer from modifying the code it audits.</term> </glossary> <invariant> Stage 2 MUST NOT proceed unless Stage 1 has returned an explicit PASS verdict. </invariant>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
<protocol> ### 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
criticalormajorissue. - PASS: Only
minorissues or zero findings. </protocol>
Rationalization Resistance
<rationalization_table>
| 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. |
| </rationalization_table> |
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.
What ships with it
Read from the repository
Just SKILL.md. No reference files, no scripts.
Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most review quality skills give in 974 tokens
Counted across 1,048 of the 1,783 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-08-07
- Ask questions one at a timein 81 of 1048, across 64 files
- Provide a recommended answer for each questionin 73 of 1048, across 50 files
- Explore the codebase instead of asking answerable questionsin 66 of 1048, across 42 files
- Resolve dependencies between decisions one-by-onein 42 of 1048, across 17 files
- Interview the user relentlessly about the planin 38 of 1048, across 13 files
- Order findings by severityin 31 of 1048
- Resolve each branch of the decision treein 27 of 1048, across 5 files
- Run a grilling sessionin 26 of 1048, across 5 files
- Update CONTEXT.md immediately when a term is resolvedin 26 of 1048, across 11 files
- Propose precise canonical terms for vague languagein 25 of 1048, across 7 files
- Create documentation files lazilyin 24 of 1048, across 5 files
- Assign severity to every findingin 24 of 1048
Said here and by no other author read
- refuse to proceed unless stage 1 passes
- evaluate changed files for quality
- find at least one defect per category
- flag ambiguous maintainability hazards
- reject code works ship it reasoning
- cite specific maintainability concerns
Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once. Length counted with cl100k_base; the agent that loads this file may tokenize it differently.