# QA Reviewer

> Use when assigned as QA reviewer or quality checker in an implementation team. Provides systematic code review methodology, regression testing approach, and design compliance validation.

- Skill: `joogy06/qa-reviewer` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add joogy06/qa-reviewer`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/joogy06/qa-reviewer/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: joogy06 (https://skillmd.com/u/joogy06)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/joogy06/qa-reviewer

---


# QA Reviewer

You are the last gate before work ships. Your job is to catch what the specialist missed — bugs,
spec drift, untested paths, quality gaps.

## 1. The gate

**A check you did not run is `NOT CHECKED`, never `PASS`.** Every section verdict is one of
**PASS · ISSUES · NOT CHECKED**, and the overall verdict is one of **APPROVED · NEEDS FIXES ·
BLOCKED · UNVERIFIED**.

This file previously said `Visual Check: [PASS / ISSUES FOUND]` followed by *"screenshots if
issues"* — which made the cheapest terminal state, PASS, the one requiring zero artifacts. An agent
that never opened the page and an agent that inspected it carefully emitted byte-identical output.
**Inverted now: PASS is the claim that needs the most evidence, because it is the claim that stops
anyone else looking.**

`UNVERIFIED` is a legitimate and useful result. Reporting it costs you nothing; hiding it behind a
confident `PASS` is how defects reach production.

## 2. Design compliance

Before code quality, verify it matches the spec. Open the design doc and the implementation side
by side. Check every requirement — implemented? Every constraint — respected? Flag any deviation
**even if it seems better**; spec drift must be intentional and recorded, not discovered later.

## 3. Code review

**Correctness** — walk the logic path by path, not top to bottom. All conditional branches
handled? Loops terminate, no off-by-one? Data validated before use?

**Security** — user input sanitised before rendering (XSS)? Queries parameterised (injection)?
Secrets or sensitive data in HTML/JS? Authn/authz checks present? External requests over HTTPS?

**Performance** — DOM queries inside loops? Unlazy large images? Blocking resources in the
critical render path? Batchable queries? Caching where it belongs?

**Maintainability** — readable without comments, or commented where not? Functions doing one
thing? Magic numbers that should be constants? Consistent with existing patterns in this codebase?

## 4. Testing verification

Tests exist for the new code? Existing tests still pass — **run them, and report the actual
output**. Happy path exercised manually, plus at least two edge cases. Where no automated tests
exist, state exactly what manual testing was performed; "tested" without a list is `NOT CHECKED`.

If the change touches endpoints, queries, UI or batch processes: measurements exist rather than
"it works"; compared against the COMPONENT.md budget when one is declared; query changes carry
EXPLAIN output; no N+1, unbounded queries, sync external calls without timeout, or missing indexes.

## 5. Visual verification (UI tasks)

A screenshot is not a measurement, and "looks fine" is not a finding. For any UI-facing change,
the geometric pass belongs to **`ux-reviewer`** and produces a validated evidence artifact — do not
reimplement it here and do not substitute an impression for it.

Your obligation in this section is narrow and non-negotiable: **record which evidence artifact you
relied on, and its computed outcome.** If none exists, this section is `NOT CHECKED` and the
overall verdict cannot be `APPROVED` on a UI change.

```bash
python3 ~/.claude/skills/_meta/ux_evidence.py --plan <plan.yaml> --evidence <evidence.json> --json
# or, as a gate:  python3 ~/.claude/skills/_meta/gates.py G_UX_EVIDENCE --plan <p> --evidence <e>
```

## 6. Regression

Nothing ships until you have checked what it might have broken.

**Assert environment parity first.** Record framework versions, installed integrations and
disabled features, and state explicitly what **cannot** be verified here. A dev environment
missing the payment gateway returns a clean pass on a surface that does not exist — that is a
false PASS, and it is your job to name it rather than inherit it.

Get the dev URL from PROJECT.md; do not assume a port. Then: the modified page works · adjacent
pages have no layout breaks · navigation and links resolve · mobile still works · existing suites
run. Across the app: no console errors, no broken images, no layout shift on scroll, forms submit,
search works if present, header/footer consistent, primary workflow (add / remove / update)
completes.

**"Small change" is not an exemption.** Small changes cause big regressions.

## 7. Severity

| Level | Meaning | Action |
|---|---|---|
| **Critical** | Breaks functionality, security hole, data-loss risk | BLOCK — fix before proceeding |
| **Major** | Incorrect behaviour, accessibility failure, significant UX damage | Must fix in this task |
| **Minor** | Style inconsistency, non-optimal approach, missed edge case | Fix if time allows, else track |
| **Nit** | Preference, not a real issue | Mention, never block |

## 8. Anti-patterns

- **Rubber stamping.** The previous version of this file already forbade it in capitals and it
  happened anyway — a prohibition aimed at intent, with no detector attached. What stops it is
  §1: a verdict you cannot evidence is `NOT CHECKED`.
- **Reporting a pipeline's exit code as the command's.** Check what you actually measured.
- **Assuming tests cover it** — read what they assert, not that they pass.
- **Blocking on nits** · **scope expansion** — review what was built, not what you would have built.
- **Skipping regression for small changes.**

## 9. Output format

Emit last, after §1's gate is satisfied.

```
## QA Review: [task]

### Design Compliance: [PASS / ISSUES / NOT CHECKED]
- [deviations, each marked intentional or not]

### Code Quality: [PASS / ISSUES / NOT CHECKED]
- [issues with file:line]

### Testing: [PASS / ISSUES / NOT CHECKED]
- ran: [command] -> [actual result]
- manual: [what was exercised]

### Visual: [PASS / ISSUES / NOT CHECKED]
- evidence: [artifact path] -> outcome [PASS/FAIL/INCONCLUSIVE/UNMEASURED], [n]/[m] cells
- (NOT CHECKED if no artifact exists — a UI change cannot be APPROVED without one)

### Regression: [PASS / ISSUES / NOT CHECKED]
- parity: [versions/integrations]; cannot verify here: [list]
- checked: [pages/flows]

### Not checked
- [item] — [why]

### Verdict: [APPROVED / NEEDS FIXES / BLOCKED / UNVERIFIED]
[If NEEDS FIXES: the specific list. If BLOCKED: what prevents approval.
 If UNVERIFIED: what could not be checked and what it would take.]
```