ln-46-quality-gate-engineer

ln-46-quality-gate-engineer is a skill for Claude Code from levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills. It costs 33 tokens per session (2,250 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

An engineering quality-check procedure for configuring and verifying lint, type, architecture, and related checks. Lint checks code style and common mistakes, while type checks verify that values are used with the expected kinds of data.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to configure approved analyzers, check scripts, rule fixtures, and existing commands, then record evidence and a verdict for each check.
Why use it?
It separates checks that were actually proven from checks that merely ran or reported success. This helps reveal missing coverage and unresolved failures without changing product behavior or inventing policy.

Skill for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: shipped in a Claude Code plugin.

Part of the implementation-suite plugin — 6 skills shipped together

Good fit Use it to configure approved analyzers, check scripts, rule fixtures, and existing commands, then record evidence and a verdict for each check.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills/ln-46-quality-gate-engineer
Install

Getting it into your agent

One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.

Any agent
npx skills add levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-46-quality-gate-engineer
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills

Made for: Claude Code.

Or install implementation-suite, the plugin that ships this one along with the rest of its 6 skills.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for ln-46-quality-gate-engineer

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills/ln-46-quality-gate-engineer/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills/ln-46-quality-gate-engineer)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills/ln-46-quality-gate-engineer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills/ln-46-quality-gate-engineer/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.

agentmods 80×15 button for ln-46-quality-gate-engineer

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills/ln-46-quality-gate-engineer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills/ln-46-quality-gate-engineer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 33 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 2,250 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00033 $0.02250
Opus 5.5 $0.00013 $0.00900
Sonnet 5.5 $0.00007 $0.00450
Haiku 4.5 $0.00003 $0.00225

Measured yesterday against content hash 59e0e6ff1204, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-10-07, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

ln-46-quality-gate-engineer 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 yesterday.

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.

plugins/implementation-suite/skills/ln-46-quality-gate-engineer/SKILL.md · 99 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 99 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Quality Gate Engineer

Goal: Deliver approved executable engineering checks with proven coverage and failure behavior. Change only authorized analyzer configuration, dev tooling, check scripts, rule fixtures and existing invocation points; distinguish effective checks from a compliant product.

Execution contract: Track every checklist item as PENDING, PROVEN with observed outcome evidence, CLEARED with evidence its condition is absent, or UNPROVEN with a gap. Reading, delegation, tool failure, zero exit status, and self-reported success are not proof. Reconcile after each section; before returning, resolve all PENDING, count only PROVEN and CLEARED, and apply verdict and approval rules to every gap. Preserve intent, scope, mode, and existing authorization. Complete authorized work before required external approval; ask only consequential unresolved choices. If nobody can answer, report the exact question and apply the skill's gap verdict without waiting or guessing. Cite any blocking instruction and unresolved boundary; never invent approval gates. Scale depth to material risk; preserve mandatory checks, dependencies, and safety order while choosing verification methods. Accept equivalent user or repository evidence without requiring another skill, named artifact, or full lifecycle. Preserve source requirement and decision IDs. Bind reused evidence to relevant versions, dirty changes, configuration, environment, and observation windows; invalidate only affected claims. Choose the primary workflow by outcome and explicit selection. Consume neighboring contracts and valid evidence without duplicating ownership or restarting audits. Split distinct deliverables by scope, not mandatory skill invocation. Broad independent assessments use audit workflows; focused domain reviews remain read-only. On continuation, reconcile task, authorization, state, and gaps. Return a compact continuation record for long work or update an already authorized artifact; read-only skills do not persist it. Distinguish artifact readiness, verified behavior, and external-action authority. Trace applicable requirements to their authoritative owner, planned or implemented change, acceptance evidence and status in the existing artifact or response; no new registry is required. Explicit constraints remain binding until an authorized deviation; risk determines priority, not permission to ignore them. Investigate the causal flow beyond initially named files. Within implementation authority, include structural repair needed for the outcome; minimize total complexity and risk, not changed lines. This does not authorize unrelated cleanup or mutation during review. Before retrieval, define the evidence question; read selectively without skipping applicable instructions. Use tools for mechanical processing; summarize bounded results, errors, coverage, and source paths, keeping full output outside context. Before technical decisions, establish applicability and actual versions; verify version-dependent assumptions against official documentation or specifications. Search and read primary pages for current external recommendations; snippets are not evidence. Version-matched bundled documentation or valid prior evidence suffices. Record decision, version, source, and limitations. Mark unavailable evidence UNVERIFIED; block only essential dependent work. Prefer native mechanisms, justify added tools or abstractions with evidence, and reuse the existing rule owner.

Read the full file on GitHub · 99 lines

Changes

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.

  1. yesterday Changed · +4 lines 59e0e6ff1204
  2. 9d ago First seen · 95 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 30930343bead

Subscribe to this mod's changes

ln-46-quality-gate-engineer is a skill published in the GitHub repository levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills (584 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 2,250 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 2026-10-19.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories

test-audit

Audit test suites for T1-T4 violations using AST analysis, mock detection, and multi-stage synthesis. Invoke when user asks to audit tests, check test quality, find mock violations, review test effectiveness, or inspect test suites for over-mocking. Triggers automatic rewrites when quality gates fail.

QBall-Inc/the-bulwark · 0 tokens

babysit

Watch an open PR — fix failing CI, handle the straightforward review comments, and drive it to a mergeable state. Claude Code analog of Cursor's built-in /babysit. Use after opening a PR when the user wants the agent to shepherd it without re-prompting.

michael-denyer/pstack-claude · 61 tokens

make-pr-easy-to-review

Prepare PRs for review by cleaning noisy history, improving PR descriptions, and adding reviewer guidance without changing code behavior. Use for "make this easy to review", "tidy this PR", "clean up commits", or "annotate the diff".

michael-denyer/pstack-claude · 57 tokens

thermo-nuclear-code-quality-review

Run an extremely strict maintainability review for abstraction quality, giant files, and spaghetti-condition growth. Use for a thermo-nuclear code quality review, thermonuclear review, deep code quality audit, or especially harsh maintainability review.

michael-denyer/pstack-claude · 54 tokens

create-formal-verification-skill

Generate a project-local skill that formally verifies the code where a bug costs the most and tests reach the least, in any language, with whichever verification tool fits. Use for /create-formal-verification-skill, "model-check this race", "prove this invariant", or when concurrency, retries, state machines, parsers…

michael-denyer/pstack-claude · 82 tokens

blast-radius

Find what a change could break somewhere else before it ships, beyond the diff, and prove the one fact it's safe because of by running real code instead of writing it up. Use for 'blast radius of X', 'what could this break', reviewing a small diff you don't trust, or a brief that asserts something about existing code…

michael-denyer/pstack-claude · 87 tokens