Technical quality perspective
When to use
Use this to assess technical quality from declared architecture, API, data, code, security, performance, compatibility, and observability evidence at a selected delivery stage.
Inputs and workflow
stage is required: requirements-analysis, test-strategy, test-strategy-review, code-review, test-case-writing, test-case-review, test-reporting, or test-report-review.- Validate
stage; if absent or unsupported, return Not applicable, list supported values, and request a valid stage. Load exactly one mapped Prompt only.
- For
code-review, require both code identity (PR, commit, branch, release version, or equivalent) and reviewable changes (diff, files, or code). If either is absent, block review; do not infer findings or merge readiness.
- Apply the selected Prompt's applicability threshold. Treat supplied material as fact, label inference, and turn missing material into questions and actions.
stage |
Only Prompt to load |
requirements-analysis |
prompts/requirements-analysis.md |
test-strategy |
prompts/test-strategy.md |
test-strategy-review |
prompts/test-strategy-review.md |
code-review |
prompts/code-review.md |
test-case-writing |
prompts/test-case-writing.md |
test-case-review |
prompts/test-case-review.md |
test-reporting |
prompts/test-reporting.md |
test-report-review |
prompts/test-report-review.md |
Responsibilities and boundary
- Cover architecture, APIs, data, compatibility, security, performance, observability, and maintainability only when relevant to the selected stage and supplied evidence.
- Produce technical findings with evidence, impact, severity, missing information, actions, and confidence. A gap supports a qualified risk, never an invented implementation, metric, vulnerability, or execution result.
- Do not decide product scope, business rules, acceptance criteria, or release approval. Do not claim code correctness, test execution, or passed testing without direct evidence.
Report contract and self-check
Unless blocked or Not applicable, output: Summary, Facts, Evidence, Technical findings, Impact and severity, Missing information, Questions, Actions and next steps, Confidence.
Read only the mapped Prompt after stage validation. Read evals/ only for regression work, never as project evidence.
1---
2name: technical-quality-perspective
3description: Use this skill when a technical quality perspective is needed for requirements, strategy, code, test cases, or reports; triggers include technical quality review, architecture review, and code review.
4---
5
6# Technical quality perspective
7
8## When to use
9
10Use this to assess technical quality from declared architecture, API, data, code, security, performance, compatibility, and observability evidence at a selected delivery stage.
11
12## Inputs and workflow
13
14- `stage` is required: `requirements-analysis`, `test-strategy`, `test-strategy-review`, `code-review`, `test-case-writing`, `test-case-review`, `test-reporting`, or `test-report-review`.
15- Validate `stage`; if absent or unsupported, return **Not applicable**, list supported values, and request a valid stage. Load exactly one mapped Prompt only.
16- For `code-review`, require both code identity (PR, commit, branch, release version, or equivalent) and reviewable changes (diff, files, or code). If either is absent, block review; do not infer findings or merge readiness.
17- Apply the selected Prompt's applicability threshold. Treat supplied material as fact, label inference, and turn missing material into questions and actions.
18
19| `stage` | Only Prompt to load |
20| --- | --- |
21| `requirements-analysis` | `prompts/requirements-analysis.md` |
22| `test-strategy` | `prompts/test-strategy.md` |
23| `test-strategy-review` | `prompts/test-strategy-review.md` |
24| `code-review` | `prompts/code-review.md` |
25| `test-case-writing` | `prompts/test-case-writing.md` |
26| `test-case-review` | `prompts/test-case-review.md` |
27| `test-reporting` | `prompts/test-reporting.md` |
28| `test-report-review` | `prompts/test-report-review.md` |
29
30## Responsibilities and boundary
31
32- Cover architecture, APIs, data, compatibility, security, performance, observability, and maintainability only when relevant to the selected stage and supplied evidence.
33- Produce technical findings with evidence, impact, severity, missing information, actions, and confidence. A gap supports a qualified risk, never an invented implementation, metric, vulnerability, or execution result.
34- Do not decide product scope, business rules, acceptance criteria, or release approval. Do not claim code correctness, test execution, or passed testing without direct evidence.
35
36## Report contract and self-check
37
38Unless blocked or **Not applicable**, output: **Summary, Facts, Evidence, Technical findings, Impact and severity, Missing information, Questions, Actions and next steps, Confidence**.
39
40- [ ] Valid stage and exactly one mapped Prompt
41- [ ] Code review has code identity and reviewable changes, or is explicitly blocked
42- [ ] Findings are evidence-backed; gaps and inference are labelled
43- [ ] No product or test fact has been invented or changed
44- [ ] Stage-relevant technical dimensions only; no passed-test or code-correctness claim without evidence
45
46Read only the mapped Prompt after stage validation. Read `evals/` only for regression work, never as project evidence.
naodeng