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.

Quality

96%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Quality

Content

92%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-structured, highly actionable skill body with a clear multi-step workflow, explicit validation/reconciliation checkpoints, and clean progressive disclosure of detailed material into reference and script files. The only weakness is mild verbosity in the cache rationale and a duplicated independence guardrail.

Suggestions

Tighten the cache-aware protocol section (rules 1–4 and the ~42k-token anecdote) — the operational rules can stand alone without the full explanatory rationale, since Claude grasps prompt caching.

Deduplicate the agent-independence guardrail: it appears both as the 'Agent independence is critical' intro and the 'CRITICAL — Agent independence' block in Step 3; consolidate into one stated-once section.

Consider moving the large report-format template (the QAREPORT.md markdown block) into a reference file, keeping only the verdict/risk-scoring rules inline to further reduce the body length.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Mostly efficient with no padding of concepts Claude already knows, but the cache-aware protocol rationale and the agent-independence guardrail (stated twice, near-verbatim) could be tightened; the detail is largely non-obvious operational knowledge rather than filler, so it sits above the midpoint.	4 / 5
Actionability	Fully executable guidance — concrete bash (mktemp, git diff, the timeout/until poll), exact file paths, a build script invoked with precise args, and copy-paste persona templates — covering the common cases copy-paste ready.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Clear four-step sequence with an explicit reconciliation checkpoint (personas/ must be empty; review count must equal persona count; relaunch leftovers on mismatch) plus failure handling for cache misses, agent failures, and a Workflow-unavailable fallback — strong feedback loops for this batch operation.	5 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	SKILL.md is an overview; persona definitions and incident patterns are split into one-level-deep references (references/personas.md, references/incident-patterns.md) signaled both inline in Step 3a and in a dedicated Reference Files section, and scripts are externalized to scripts/ — all four referenced paths verified to exist.	5 / 5
	Total	19 / 20 Passed

Description

100%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, specific description that clearly states what the skill does and when to invoke it, with concrete trigger phrases and a distinctive multi-agent code-review niche. No vague fluff or over-claims.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions — spawns parallel specialist agents across eight named focus areas (security, database, reliability, compatibility, data integrity, performance, frontend, copy) that independently review the diff and produce a converged report, plus two generalist reviewers — giving comprehensive, specific coverage.	5 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what (multi-agent QA review spawning specialist and generalist agents producing a converged report) and when ("This skill should be used when the user asks to...") with concrete trigger phrases.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural phrases a user would actually say — "review my code", "run QA", "qa-team", "review this branch", "code review", "check my changes" — covering the skill name and common synonyms comprehensively.	5 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Occupies a clear niche — comprehensive multi-perspective code review of the current branch's changes with convergence analysis — with distinct triggers and minimal overlap risk against other skills.	5 / 5
	Total	20 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

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

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: PostHog/posthog
Path: .agents/skills/qa-team/SKILL.md
Commit: 6fca5f8

Reviewed: 3 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.