quality-review

Deep code review with web research. Use when double-checking code against latest docs, verifying dependency versions, or reviewing security concerns. Complements automatic quality hook with ecosystem

SKILL.md

GitHub

Quality Reviewing

Deep review with web research to verify against current ecosystem. Complements automatic hook.

When to use this skill (not automatic hook):

  • Explicit web research: "double check against latest docs", "verify versions", "check security"
  • Deep dive needed: Performance, architecture, trade-offs beyond automatic hook
  • Pre-change review: Review before making changes (hook only triggers after)

Relationship: Automatic hook does fast check with existing knowledge. This skill does deep dive with web research (2-3 min).

1. Detect Phase

If in BDD workflow, read current ticket from .safeword-project/tickets/ and apply phase-appropriate research:

Phase Research Focus
intake Similar features in ecosystem, scope patterns
define-behavior Testing patterns, BDD research and patterns
scenario-gate Architecture patterns, test layer strategy
implement Library versions, deprecated APIs, security
done CI/CD patterns, release checklists

2. Verify Versions (Primary Value)

CRITICAL: This is your main differentiator from automatic hook.

Search for: "[library name] latest stable version 2025" Search for: "[library name] security vulnerabilities"

Flag if outdated:

  • Major versions behind -> WARN (e.g., React 17 when 19 is stable)
  • Minor versions behind -> NOTE
  • Security vulnerabilities -> CRITICAL (must upgrade)
  • Using latest -> Confirm

3. Verify Documentation (Primary Value)

Fetch official documentation for libraries in use.

Look for:

  • Deprecated APIs being used?
  • Newer, better patterns available?
  • Recent recommendation changes?

Output Format

## Quality Review

**Versions:** [✓/⚠️/❌] [Latest version check]
**Documentation:** [✓/⚠️/❌] [Current docs check]
**Security:** [✓/⚠️/❌] [Vulnerability check]

**Verdict:** [APPROVE / REQUEST CHANGES / NEEDS DISCUSSION]

**Critical issues:** [List or "None"]
**Suggested improvements:** [List or "None"]
**Provenance:** For version/API claims:

- (verified: [source URL or doc title]) — fetched this session
- (training data: may be outdated) — not verified
- (uncertain) — could not verify

**Next:** [concrete action — upgrade X from a.b.c to x.y.z, refactor {file}:{line}, ask team about Z, or proceed to implementation if APPROVE]

The **Next:** line is required. On APPROVE, name what to do now (proceed, commit, run /verify). On REQUEST CHANGES, name the specific edit and re-review trigger. On NEEDS DISCUSSION, name the question to ask. A verdict that doesn't tell the reader what to do next is incomplete.

Reminders

  1. Primary value: Web research - Verify versions, docs, security
  2. Complement automatic hook - Hook prompts for the decision-brief verdict and per-phase evidence; you verify versions, primary-literature claims, and ecosystem context the hook can't see
  3. Phase matters - Adapt research focus to current BDD phase
  4. Be concise - Hook already prompts for general quality, focus on what it can't do

Voice: plainspoken and concise — write to be scanned.