CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

qa-team

Multi-agent QA review team for code changes. This skill should be used when the user asks to "review my code", "run QA", "qa-team", "review this branch", "code review", "check my changes", or wants a comprehensive multi-perspective code review of the current branch's changes. Spawns parallel specialist agents (security, database, reliability, compatibility, data integrity, performance, frontend, copy) that independently review the diff and produce a converged report. Also includes two generalist reviewers for convergence validation.

66

Quality

83%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

—

The risk profile of this skill

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

70%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A well-sequenced, highly actionable orchestration skill with strong validation checkpoints, but it is undercut by a missing bundle (the referenced references/ and scripts/ files are absent) and by repeated emphasis that bloats the body.

Suggestions

Ship the referenced bundle files (references/personas.md, references/incident-patterns.md, scripts/claim_persona.sh, scripts/build_launch_scripts.js) — without them the specialist personas cannot be built and the launch steps are not executable.

Consolidate the agent-independence warning into one authoritative statement; the rule is currently restated three times across the intro and Step 3.

Trim the prompt-caching rationale to the four numbered rules; the explanatory preamble re-explains strict-prefix caching that the rules already imply.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly operational and necessary (cache protocol, reconciliation, fallback), but the agent-independence warning is repeated three times (intro 'Agent independence is critical', the Step 3 'CRITICAL — Agent independence' block, and the trailing parenthetical) and the prompt-caching rationale is verbose, so it could be tightened.

3 / 5

Actionability

Provides concrete, copy-paste-ready bash (mktemp/git diff/the claimed-poll loop), explicit Workflow tool invocation syntax, and concrete persona templates — but execution depends on shipped scripts (scripts/claim_persona.sh, scripts/build_launch_scripts.js) that are not bundled, a real gap versus fully executable.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Clear Step 1–4 sequence with substeps and an explicit validation/reconciliation checkpoint (3c.5: 'personas/ must be empty and the number of collected reviews ... must equal the persona count'), plus feedback loops for failed reviewers and cache-miss handling.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Structural design is good with a 'Reference Files' section signaling one-level-deep references (references/personas.md, references/incident-patterns.md, scripts/*), but those bundle files do not exist in the skill directory, so the signaled references are broken and navigation fails.

3 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

91%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A strong description: third-person voice, explicit what-and-when, comprehensive natural triggers, and a distinctive multi-agent niche. The only weakness is mild overlap risk from generic review triggers and mechanism-description rather than enumerated discrete actions.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists several specific elements — 'Spawns parallel specialist agents (security, database, reliability, compatibility, data integrity, performance, frontend, copy)', 'produce a converged report', 'two generalist reviewers for convergence validation' — but it is one review workflow's mechanism rather than many discrete user-facing actions, leaving minor coverage gaps versus the comprehensive-action anchor.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ('Multi-agent QA review team for code changes ... Spawns parallel specialist agents ... produce a converged report') and when ('This skill should be used when the user asks to ...'), with concrete trigger phrases.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Comprehensive natural trigger coverage including synonyms and a distinct codename: 'review my code', 'run QA', 'qa-team', 'review this branch', 'code review', 'check my changes', 'comprehensive multi-perspective code review' — these are phrases a user would naturally say.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche via the multi-agent framing and the distinct 'qa-team' codename, but broad triggers like 'review my code', 'code review', and 'check my changes' create minor overlap risk with simpler code-review skills.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 5 missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

PostHog/posthog

Path

.agents/skills/qa-team/SKILL.md

Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.