From superpipelines
Provides Stage 2 quality review protocol for code audits after Stage 1 PASS verdict, with self-skepticism directives for inline dispatch contexts.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/superpipelines:pipeline-quality-reviewer-protocolThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
<overview>
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.
Evaluate every changed file across these dimensions:
critical or major issue.minor issues or zero findings.
<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> |
${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/sk-write-review-isolation/SKILL.md — Isolation protocol.${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/sk-claude-code-conventions/SKILL.md — ID and style rules.Provides behavioral guidelines to reduce common LLM coding mistakes, focusing on simplicity, surgical changes, assumption surfacing, and verifiable success criteria.
Searches, retrieves, and installs Agent Skills from prompts.chat registry using MCP tools like search_skills and get_skill. Activates for finding skills, browsing catalogs, or extending Claude.
Creates, edits, and optimizes skills for Claude Code, including drafting, evaluating with test prompts, iterating on performance, and improving skill descriptions for better triggering accuracy.
npx claudepluginhub gustavo-meilus/superpipelines --plugin superpipelines