reviewing

Run specialist reviewers and artifact verification to create P1-P3 beads.

Updated Mar 27, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/quanpersie2001/pulse --skill reviewing-quanpersie2001
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: reviewing
Source: https://github.com/quanpersie2001/pulse/tree/main/plugins/pulse/skills/reviewing
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/quanpersie2001/pulse --skill reviewing-quanpersie2001

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

💡 This Skill includes references (resource) components.

What problem does it solve?

Reviewing provides the final automated quality gate for features by verifying that implemented work is correct, safe, and complete before a human approves merge. It prevents regressions, security gaps, missing verification evidence, and untracked follow-up work from slipping into production.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Runs four specialist review agents (code-quality, architecture, security, test-coverage) and a learnings synthesizer to surface cross-cutting patterns.
  • Performs three-level artifact verification (exists, substantive, wired), human UAT walkthroughs, and converts findings into traceable beads with P1/P2/P3 severity rules.
  • Finishing checklist automates build/test validation, PR creation options, state archival, and handing off compounding tasks; ideal for gated release workflows, auditable feature closeout, and security-sensitive deployments.

Quick Start

Invoke reviewing after the final phase swarm to run specialist reviewers, verify artifacts and UAT items, and produce review beads and finishing artifacts.

Frequently Asked Questions about reviewing

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I automate code review and artifact verification before a merge?

Automate code review and artifact verification by running specialist agents for code quality, architecture, security, and test coverage, then validating artifacts and user acceptance walkthroughs to catch release-blocking issues.

What is the best way to enforce quality assurance gates for security-sensitive deployments?

Enforce quality assurance gates by applying post-execution verification to feature workflows, running security specialist reviewers, verifying artifacts, and tracking findings as severity-ranked beads before human approval.

How do I track release-blocking issues and follow-up tasks from a code review?

Track release-blocking issues by converting review findings into traceable beads, assigning P1 severity to blocking issues and P2 or P3 to follow-up tasks, ensuring untracked work does not slip into production.

Does artifact verification check if tests and code are properly wired into the build?

Artifact verification checks if artifacts are properly wired by performing three-level validation: confirming the artifact exists, verifying it is substantive, and ensuring it is correctly wired into the build.

What inputs are required to run automated post-execution quality verification?

Post-execution quality verification requires isolated diffs, history or CONTEXT.md inputs, and approach.md files to provide the necessary context for specialist reviewers and artifact validation.