quality-gates▌
yonatangross/orchestkit · updated Apr 8, 2026
MDX-style export adds YAML metadata + attribution linking explainx.ai and this canonical listing URL.
This skill teaches agents how to assess task complexity, enforce quality gates, and prevent wasted work on incomplete or poorly-defined tasks.
Quality Gates
This skill teaches agents how to assess task complexity, enforce quality gates, and prevent wasted work on incomplete or poorly-defined tasks.
Key Principle: Stop and clarify before proceeding with incomplete information. Better to ask questions than to waste cycles on the wrong solution.
Overview
Auto-Activate Triggers
- Receiving a new task assignment
- Starting a complex feature implementation
- Before allocating work in Squad mode
- When requirements seem unclear or incomplete
- After 3 failed attempts at the same task
- When blocked by dependencies
Manual Activation
- User asks for complexity assessment
- Planning a multi-step project
- Before committing to a timeline
Core Concepts
Complexity Scoring (1-5 Scale)
| Level | Files | Lines | Time | Characteristics |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 - Trivial | 1 | < 50 | < 30 min | No deps, no unknowns |
| 2 - Simple | 1-3 | 50-200 | 30 min - 2 hr | 0-1 deps, minimal unknowns |
| 3 - Moderate | 3-10 | 200-500 | 2-8 hr | 2-3 deps, some unknowns |
| 4 - Complex | 10-25 | 500-1500 | 8-24 hr | 4-6 deps, significant unknowns |
| 5 - Very Complex | 25+ | 1500+ | 24+ hr | 7+ deps, many unknowns |
Load: Read("${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/complexity-scoring.md") for detailed examples and assessment formulas.
Blocking Thresholds
| Condition | Threshold | Action |
|---|---|---|
| YAGNI Gate | Justified ratio > 2.0 | BLOCK with simpler alternatives |
| YAGNI Warning | Justified ratio 1.5-2.0 | WARN with simpler alternatives |
| Critical Questions | > 3 unanswered | BLOCK |
| Missing Dependencies | Any blocking | BLOCK |
| Failed Attempts | >= 3 | BLOCK & ESCALATE |
| Evidence Failure | 2 fix attempts | BLOCK |
| Complexity Overflow | Level 4-5 no plan | BLOCK |
WARNING Conditions (proceed with caution):
- Level 3 complexity
- 1-2 unanswered questions
- 1-2 failed attempts
Load: Read("${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/blocking-thresholds.md") for escalation protocols and decision logic.
References
Load on demand with Read("${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/<file>"):
| File | Content |
|---|---|
complexity-scoring.md |
Detailed Level 1-5 characteristics, quick assessment formula, checklist |
blocking-thresholds.md |
BLOCKING vs WARNING conditions, escalation protocol, gate decision logic, attempt tracking |
workflows.md |
Pre-task gate validation, stuck detection, complexity breakdown (Level 4-5), requirements completeness |
gate-patterns.md |
Gate validation process templates, context system integration, common pitfalls |
llm-quality-validation.md |
LLM-as-judge patterns, quality aspects, fail-open/closed strategies, graceful degradation, triple-consumer artifacts |
Quick Reference
Gate Decision Flow
0. YAGNI check (runs FIRST — before any implementation planning)
→ Read project tier from scope-appropriate-architecture
→ Calculate justified_complexity = planned_LOC / tier_appropriate_LOC
→ If ratio > 2.0: BLOCK (must simplify)
→ If ratio 1.5-2.0: WARN (present simpler alternative)
→ Security patterns exempt from YAGNI gate
1. Assess complexity (1-5)
2. Count critical questions unanswered
3. Check dependencies blocked
4. Check attempt count
if (yagni_ratio > 2.0) -> BLOCK with simpler alternatives
else if (questions > 3 || deps blocked || attempts >= 3) -> BLOCK
else if (complexity >= 4 && no plan) -> BLOCK
else if (yagni_ratio > 1.5 || complexity == 3 || questions 1-2) -> WARNING
else -> PASS
Gate Check Template
## Quality Gate: [Task Name]
**Complexity:** Level [1-5]
**Unanswered Critical Questions:** [Count]
**Blocked Dependencies:** [List or None]
**Failed Attempts:** [Count]
**Status:** PASS / WARNING / BLOCKED
**Can Proceed:** Yes / No
Escalation Template
## Escalation: Task Blocked
**Task:** [Description]
**Block Type:** [Critical Questions / Dependencies / Stuck / Evidence]
**Attempts:** [Count]
### What Was Tried
1. [Approach 1] - Failed: [Reason]
2. [Approach 2] - Failed: [Reason]
### Need Guidance On
- [Specific question]
**Recommendation:** [Suggested action]
Integration with Context System
// Add gate check to context
context.quality_gates = context.quality_gates || [];
context.quality_gates.push({
task_id: taskId,
timestamp: new Date().toISOString(),
complexity_score: 3,
gate_status: 'pass', // pass, warning, blocked
critical_questions_count: 1,
unanswered_questions: 1,
dependencies_blocked: 0,
attempt_count: 0,
can_proceed: true
});
Integration with Evidence System
// Before marking task complete
const evidence = context.quality_evidence;
const hasPassingEvidence = (
evidence?.tests?.exit_code === 0 ||
evidence?.build?.exit_code === 0
);
if (!hasPassingEvidence) {
return { gate_status: 'blocked', reason: 'no_passing_evidence' };
}
Best Practices Pattern Library
Track success/failure patterns across projects to prevent repeating mistakes and proactively warn during code reviews.
| Rule | File | Key Pattern |
|---|---|---|
| YAGNI Gate | rules/yagni-gate.md |
Pre-implementation scope check, justified complexity ratio, simpler alternatives |
| Pattern Library | rules/practices-code-standards.md |
Success/failure tracking, confidence scoring, memory integration |
| Review Checklist | rules/practices-review-checklist.md |
Category-based review, proactive anti-pattern detection |
Pattern Confidence Levels
| Level | Meaning | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Strong success | 3+ projects, 100% success | Always recommend |
| Mixed results | Both successes and failures | Context-dependent |
| Strong anti-pattern | 3+ projects, all failed | Block with explanation |
Common Pitfalls
| Pitfall | Problem | Solution |
|---|---|---|
| Skip gates for "simple" tasks | Get stuck later | Always run gate check |
| Ignore WARNING status | Undocumented assumptions cause issues | Document every assumption |
| Not tracking attempts | Waste cycles on same approach | Track every attempt, escalate at 3 |
| Proceed when BLOCKED | Build wrong solution | NEVER bypass BLOCKED gates |
Related Skills
ork:scope-appropriate-architecture- Project tier detection that feeds YAGNI gateork:architecture-patterns- Enforce testing standards as part of quality gatesllm-evaluation- LLM-as-judge patterns for quality validationork:golden-dataset- Validate datasets meet quality thresholds
Key Decisions
| Decision | Choice | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Complexity Scale | 1-5 levels | Granular enough for estimation, simple enough for quick assessment |
| Block Threshold | 3 critical questions | Prevents proceeding with too many unknowns |
| Escalation Trigger | 3 failed attempts | Balances persistence with avoiding wasted cycles |
| Level 4-5 Requirement | Plan required | Complex tasks need upfront decomposition |
Capability Details
complexity-scoring
Keywords: complexity, score, difficulty, estimate, sizing, 1-5 scale Solves: How complex is this task? Score task complexity on 1-5 scale, assess implementation difficulty
blocking-thresholds
Keywords: blocking, threshold, gate, stop, escalate, cannot proceed Solves: When should I block progress? >3 critical questions = BLOCK, Missing dependencies = BLOCK
critical-questions
Keywords: critical questions, unanswered, unknowns, clarify Solves: What are critical questions? Count unanswered, block if >3
stuck-detection
Keywords: stuck, failed attempts, retry, 3 attempts, escalate Solves: How do I detect when stuck? After 3 failed attempts, escalate
gate-validation
Keywords: validate, gate check, pass, fail, gate status Solves: How do I validate quality gates? Run pre-task gate validation
pre-task-gate-check
Keywords: pre-task, before starting, can proceed Solves: How do I check gates before starting? Assess complexity, identify blockers
complexity-breakdown
Keywords: breakdown, decompose, subtasks, split task Solves: How do I break down complex tasks? Split Level 4-5 into Level 1-3 subtasks
requirements-completeness
Keywords: requirements, incomplete, acceptance criteria Solves: Are requirements complete enough? Check functional/technical requirements
escalation-protocol
Keywords: escalate, ask user, need help, human guidance Solves: When and how to escalate? Escalate after 3 failed attempts
llm-as-judge
Keywords: llm as judge, g-eval, aspect scoring, quality validation Solves: How do I use LLM-as-judge? Evaluate relevance, depth, coherence with thresholds
yagni-gate
Keywords: yagni, over-engineering, justified complexity, scope check, too complex, simplify Solves: Is this complexity justified? Calculate justified_complexity ratio against project tier, BLOCK if > 2.0, surface simpler alternatives
How to use quality-gates on Cursor
AI-first code editor with Composer
Prerequisites
Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:
- ›Cursor installed and configured on your development machine
- ›Node.js version 16.0+ with npm package manager (verify with
node --version) - ›Active project directory or workspace where you want to add quality-gates
Execute installation command
Execute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:
The skills CLI fetches quality-gates from GitHub repository yonatangross/orchestkit and configures it for Cursor.
Select Cursor when prompted
The CLI will show a list of available agents. Use arrow keys to navigate and space to select Cursor:
Verify installation
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
Reload or restart Cursor to activate quality-gates. Access the skill through slash commands (e.g., /quality-gates) or your agent's skill management interface.
Security & Verification Notice
We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.
Skills execute code in your development environment. Always verify the publisher's identity, review recent commits, and test in isolated environments before production deployment.
List & Monetize Your Skill
Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning
Use Cases▌
User Story & Requirements Generation
Create detailed user stories, acceptance criteria, and feature specs
Example
Generate user stories for 'password reset feature' with acceptance criteria, edge cases, and test scenarios
Reduce spec writing time by 50%, ensure comprehensive coverage
Competitive Analysis
Research competitors, compare features, identify gaps
Example
Analyze 5 competitor products, create feature comparison matrix, suggest differentiation opportunities
Complete competitive research in 2 hours instead of 2 days
Roadmap Prioritization
Evaluate features using frameworks (RICE, ICE, Kano) and create prioritized backlogs
Example
Score 20 feature ideas using RICE framework, generate prioritized roadmap with rationale
Make data-driven prioritization decisions faster
Stakeholder Communication
Draft PRDs, status updates, and stakeholder presentations
Example
Create executive summary of Q3 roadmap, monthly progress report, feature launch announcement
Save 3-5 hours/week on communication overhead
Implementation Guide▌
Prerequisites
- ›Claude Desktop or compatible AI client
- ›Access to product documentation and roadmap tools (Jira, Notion, etc.)
- ›Understanding of product management frameworks (RICE, Jobs-to-be-Done, etc.)
- ›Stakeholder contact information and communication channels
Time Estimate
30-60 minutes to see productivity improvements
Installation Steps
- 1.Install product management skill
- 2.Start with user story generation for known feature
- 3.Progress to competitive analysis: research 2-3 competitors
- 4.Use for roadmap prioritization: apply RICE/ICE scoring
- 5.Draft stakeholder communications and refine based on feedback
- 6.Build template library for recurring PM tasks
- 7.Share effective prompts with product team
Common Pitfalls
- ⚠Not validating competitive research—verify facts before sharing
- ⚠Accepting user stories without involving engineering team
- ⚠Over-relying on frameworks without qualitative judgment
- ⚠Not customizing outputs to company culture and communication style
- ⚠Skipping stakeholder validation of generated requirements
Best Practices▌
✓ Do
- +Validate research and competitive analysis with real data
- +Collaborate with engineering when generating technical requirements
- +Customize frameworks and templates to your company context
- +Use skill for first drafts, refine with stakeholder input
- +Document successful prompt patterns for PM tasks
- +Combine AI efficiency with human judgment and intuition
✗ Don't
- −Don't publish competitive analysis without fact-checking
- −Don't finalize user stories without engineering review
- −Don't make prioritization decisions solely on AI scoring
- −Don't skip customer validation of generated requirements
- −Don't ignore company-specific context and culture
💡 Pro Tips
- ★Provide context: company goals, constraints, customer feedback
- ★Ask for alternatives: 'Show 3 ways to prioritize this roadmap'
- ★Request stakeholder-specific formatting: 'Executive summary vs. engineering spec'
- ★Use skill for 70% generation + 30% customization to company needs
When to Use This▌
✓ Use When
Use for user story writing, competitive research, roadmap prioritization, stakeholder communication, and PRD drafting. Best for reducing repetitive documentation and research work.
✗ Avoid When
Avoid for strategic product vision (requires deep customer empathy), pricing decisions (needs market and financial expertise), or when face-to-face customer discovery is more valuable than speed.
Learning Path▌
- 1Basic: user stories, feature specs, status updates
- 2Intermediate: competitive analysis, prioritization frameworks, PRDs
- 3Advanced: product strategy, go-to-market planning, OKR setting
- 4Expert: product vision, market positioning, business model innovation
Discussion
Product Hunt–style comments (not star reviews)- No comments yet — start the thread.
Ratings
4.7★★★★★45 reviews- ★★★★★Zara Park· Dec 28, 2024
quality-gates is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
- ★★★★★Charlotte Wang· Dec 28, 2024
Useful defaults in quality-gates — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.
- ★★★★★Chaitanya Patil· Dec 20, 2024
Keeps context tight: quality-gates is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
- ★★★★★James Shah· Dec 12, 2024
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: quality-gates is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
- ★★★★★James Sanchez· Nov 19, 2024
quality-gates reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
- ★★★★★Kaira Johnson· Nov 19, 2024
quality-gates has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
- ★★★★★Piyush G· Nov 11, 2024
Registry listing for quality-gates matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
- ★★★★★Tariq Wang· Nov 7, 2024
quality-gates fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
- ★★★★★Mei Sharma· Nov 3, 2024
I recommend quality-gates for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.
- ★★★★★Charlotte Gupta· Oct 26, 2024
We added quality-gates from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.
showing 1-10 of 45