Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to c9r-io/orchestrator. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/c9r-io/orchestrator/main/.claude/skills/qa-doc-governance/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/c9r-io/orchestratorWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/c9r-io/orchestrator/qa-doc-governance)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/c9r-io/orchestrator/qa-doc-governance"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/c9r-io/orchestrator/qa-doc-governance/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/c9r-io/orchestrator/qa-doc-governance"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/c9r-io/orchestrator/qa-doc-governance.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00066 | $0.00835 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00033 | $0.00417 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00167 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00084 |
Grade A, and why
qa-doc-governance scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 10d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 78 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
QA Doc Governance
Run a repeatable governance loop for QA documentation quality, consistency, and discoverability.
Workflow
- Baseline audit.
- Classify findings by severity and scope.
- Apply targeted remediation.
- Sync index and governance artifacts.
- Validate and publish audit result.
Step 1: Baseline Audit
- Run
scripts/qa-doc-lint.sh. - Run
./.claude/skills/qa-doc-governance/scripts/run-audit.shfor expanded metrics. - If needed, read
references/policy-checklist.mdfor rule definitions.
Step 2: Classify Findings
Use this priority order:
P0: Broken navigability or unusable test flow. : Examples: missing checklist, impossible auth/session steps, README index drift.P1: Governance drift. : Examples: too many scenarios in one file, missing UI entry visibility in UI-facing docs.P2: Style consistency improvements. : Examples: naming alignment, wording normalization.
Step 3: Remediate
Apply these rules in order:
- Fix executable correctness first. : Replace non-executable auth/session checks with explicit methods (incognito/private window, clear session cookie, explicit sign-out).
- Enforce mock-fixture-only for orchestrator workflows.
: QA docs must reference
fixtures/manifests/bundles/*mock fixtures (echo agents), neverdocs/workflow/*(real AI agents). Every doc must include explicitapply -f fixtures/...in preconditions. Standalone scenario stubs must inline precondition commands or cross-reference parent doc. Severity: P0. - Enforce visibility-first UI flows. : UI scenarios start from visible entry points (sidebar, tab, button, quick links), not direct URL.
- Enforce scenario cap.
: Keep each file
<=5numbered scenarios. Split long files into base/advanced or topic-specific docs. - Keep checklists mandatory.
: Every QA doc includes
## Checklist/## Regression Checklist(or localized equivalent).
Step 4: Sync Governance Artifacts
- Update
docs/qa/README.mdso index matches current docs. - If this repo uses
docs/qa/_manifest.yaml, regenerate it with scenario counts and governance flags. - If QA behavior changes affect security/UIUX expectations, add alignment notes to:
:
docs/security/README.md,docs/uiux/README.md. - Check
CHANGELOG.mdconsistency. : Entries under[Unreleased]have not shipped, so a stale one will publish as a false statement. Verify no unreleased entry describes a mechanism the repo has since removed or replaced, that removals appear under### Removed, and that user-visible incompatibilities are recorded with the exact diagnostic users will hit. Released sections are historical and stay as written.
What ships with it
3 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 10d ago First seen · 78 lines · 66 tokens per session scan A db1c6399c73a
qa-doc-governance is a skill published in the GitHub repository c9r-io/orchestrator (21 stars, last pushed 9d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 66 tokens to every session and 835 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
cw-gates
Use before claiming any Codewhale change is done, green, or ready to land: the focused-to-broad verification ladder, the budget checks CI enforces, and the rules for what counts as a passing test.
codew-release-qa-sweep
Use before claiming Codewhale release work is done: run the full gate sweep and list the manual QA targets.
issue-to-pr
Implement one bounded repository issue with normal host tools, prove the tested change through one scafld finalize wall, and optionally publish the exact pull request through scoped provider authority with readback.
cw-land
Use when turning verified Codewhale work into commits, branches, or a merge: choosing direct-main vs. worktree vs. integration branch, preserving contributor credit, and honoring the gate artifact before merging.
cw-dogfood
Use when a Codewhale change needs proving in the real product, or when asked to build/install/dogfood the local binaries: stamped release build, atomic install, fresh-shell verification, and the manual QA that gates cannot cover.
cw-orient
Use at the start of any Codewhale work session, or when unsure which checkout, branch, or worktree is authoritative: establish live repo truth before reading a plan or editing a file.