Agent skill

Quality

by arul28 in arul28/ADE

Make the code correct, clean, and current. An agent skill from arul28/ADE.

AGPL-3.0Auto-check passedDatabases

Install Quality

skills CLI
$ npx skills add arul28/ADE --skill quality -a claude-code

Project install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install arul28/ADE quality --agent claude-code

Project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).

Manual copy
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/arul28/ADE.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/.agents/skills/quality .claude/skills/quality && rm -rf skills-src

Use ~/.claude/skills/ instead of .claude/skills for a personal install. The folder must contain SKILL.md.

Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/

Facts

Skill name
quality
GitHub stars
113
Token cost
~5.6k tokens
SKILL.md length
2,768 words
Files
5 (incl. references)
Skills in repo
30
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
AGPL-3.0

At a glance

Make the code correct, clean, and current. An agent skill from arul28/ADE.

  • Works in 2 steps: Open the PR early → Thermo Dual-Review → Synthesize + Fix
  • Databases work in your project
  • SKILL.md covers Execution Model (parallel by…, Setup, Step 0: Open the PR early and Phase 1: Thermo Dual-Review →…, plus 1 more section
  • Calls git, npm and gh

What it does

Quality is an agent skill from arul28/ADE. Make the code correct, clean, and current. Opens the PR first so CI and review bots run during the review, then harvests their results before it finishes. A thermo dual-review: a correctness/security track and a maintainability/code-judo track run in parallel, then a synthesis step dedupes, severity-ranks (Blocker/High/Medium/ Low), verifies each finding against the real code, and FIXES EVERY VERIFIED FINDING at any severity — re-reviewing only the fix delta, with a cap. Windows parity is a default requirement…

Its SKILL.md is about 5.6k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. The skill folder holds 5 other files, including reference files (for example `references/ade-review-rules.md`, `references/correctness-security-review.md` and `references/thermo-nuclear-review.md`).

It sits in Databases. It works with SQLite. The licence is AGPL-3.0.

When your agent uses it

  • Databases work in your project

Example prompts

  • “/quality”

Workflow steps

2 steps, taken from the step headings in SKILL.md.

  1. Open the PR early
  2. Thermo Dual-Review → Synthesize + Fix

What it can do on your machine

Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit 7390d95. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.

  • Tool permissions

    Pre-approves nothing: there is no allowed-tools line, so your agent's usual permission prompts apply.

    From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.

  • Runs code

    Shell commands in SKILL.md call:

    • git
    • npm
    • gh
    • node

    From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.

  • Network

    No URLs in SKILL.md. Its commands use git, npm and gh, which can reach the network depending on how they are called.

    From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.

  • Credentials

    Names no API keys, tokens, secrets or passwords.

    From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.

Context cost

Quality loads about 5.6k tokens when it runs, and up to ~16k if it reads all its reference files. Until then it costs about 218 tokens; SKILL.md has 2,768 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~218
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~5.6k
With references · SKILL.md plus every file in references/, read only if the agent opens them
~16k

Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.

Safety

Auto-check passed

The automated check found no risky patterns in SKILL.md.

Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); files beside SKILL.md are not scanned.

SKILL.md

The full file from arul28/ADE at commit 7390d95, republished under its AGPL-3.0 licence (© arul28). 2,768 words, ~5,633 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/quality/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder). This skill also uses 4 other files; get the full folder from GitHub.
name
quality
description
Make the code correct, clean, and current. Opens the PR first so CI and review bots run during the review, then harvests their results before it finishes. A thermo dual-review: a correctness/security track and a maintainability/code-judo track run in parallel, then a synthesis step dedupes, severity-ranks (Blocker/High/Medium/ Low), verifies each finding against the real code, and FIXES EVERY VERIFIED FINDING at any severity — re-reviewing only the fix delta, with a cap. Windows parity is a default requirement for all new code. Only findings needing a product decision, a behavior change this branch was not asked to make, or a capability whose Windows parity is not achievable, reach the merge-blocking gate. Grounded in ADE's own bug classes (runtime-backed null services, daemon action-domain wiring, cr-sqlite CRR, IPC contract drift, fast-tier loading).

Quality Skill

The loop's quality gate: find the bugs, clean up the code. Run after the work is implemented (/context → work → /quality), before /test. It opens the PR as its first step so CI and the review bots run while it reviews, and it acts on their results before it finishes. This skill is correctness + maintainability only — docs, CLI, TUI, and mobile parity are owned by /test's parity passes, so it does not touch them.

Print a one-line phase status as you go (no banner). Update it after each phase:

quality · Phase 1 Thermo Dual-Review → Synthesize + Fix · ACTIVE

Execution Model (parallel by default, teams on Claude)

Both tracks run in parallel. Reviewers return findings (severity + file:line + evidence + proposed fix); they do not apply fixes — the synthesis step owns all edits so dedupe and severity-gating happen in one place.

  • Subagent limits. Follow the Subagents rules in AGENTS.md. A track agent is a leaf: it reviews its track itself and does not start parallel reviewers or other subagents. Put that sentence in each track's brief. When the user has asked to limit agents, run both tracks yourself, one after the other, and the delta re-reviews in step 7 are always yours.
  • Any runtime — spawn one agent per track; the lead runs synthesis.
  • Claude Code with agent teams (CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS=1, already set in .claude/settings.json) — realize the tracks as a team, one teammate per track, lead runs synthesis. Per the global git-worktrees policy, do not pass worktree isolation. Never require a team to run this skill.

Each reviewer receives the same scoped context: git diff "$QUALITY_REVIEW_BASE" plus the full contents of the changed files — including new untracked files, which the tracked diff omits — so it evaluates without guessing.


Setup

Invocation: /quality [feature] [--base <ref>]. --base is the explicit direct-parent binding for a stacked layer. Resolve the base in this order:

  1. a validated --base <ref> argument;
  2. an existing PR's baseRefName;
  3. the current entry's parent from non-interactive gh stack view --json;
  4. ADE_REVIEW_BASE_REF from a trusted ship state file;
  5. main for the unchanged ordinary workflow.

Do not stop discovery after reading an existing PR. Still inspect gh stack view --json: a current branch present in that stack makes its PR base exact, including a bottom layer based on main. A PR with a non-default base is also an exact direct-parent binding. Only an ordinary unstacked PR targeting the repository default branch keeps QUALITY_EXACT_BASE=false and the historical merge-base behavior. When both PR and stack metadata exist, their parent names and SHAs must agree.

Normalize refs/heads/<name>, refs/remotes/origin/<name>, origin/<name>, and plain <name> to one plain branch name. Reject another remote, symbolic refs, revision syntax (.., ~, ^, :), an empty value, or a name that fails git check-ref-format --branch; never concatenate an unvalidated ref into a command. Fetch the normalized name into its exact remote-tracking ref:

bash
# QUALITY_BASE_REF is the validated, normalized plain branch name selected
# above. QUALITY_EXACT_BASE is true for --base, stack metadata, or trusted
# stack ship state, a non-default PR base, or a PR confirmed in gh-stack;
# ordinary unstacked /quality against the default branch keeps it false.
git check-ref-format --branch "$QUALITY_BASE_REF"
git fetch origin "refs/heads/$QUALITY_BASE_REF:refs/remotes/origin/$QUALITY_BASE_REF"
QUALITY_BASE_SHA=$(git rev-parse "origin/$QUALITY_BASE_REF")
if [ "$QUALITY_EXACT_BASE" = true ]; then
  git merge-base --is-ancestor "$QUALITY_BASE_SHA" HEAD || {
    echo "stack-coordinator-sync-required: direct parent is not an ancestor of HEAD"
    exit 1
  }
  QUALITY_REVIEW_BASE="$QUALITY_BASE_SHA"
else
  QUALITY_REVIEW_BASE=$(git merge-base HEAD "$QUALITY_BASE_SHA")
fi
git diff "$QUALITY_REVIEW_BASE" --name-only
git status --short                 # NEW (untracked) files — git diff omits these
git diff "$QUALITY_REVIEW_BASE" --stat | tail -20
git log "$QUALITY_REVIEW_BASE"..HEAD --oneline

For stack metadata, also require its reported parent SHA to equal QUALITY_BASE_SHA; a name match alone is insufficient. The base must be the direct parent of the current stack entry, not main and not the root of the stack. Record the normalized parent branch, fetched parent SHA, merge-base, reviewed head SHA, and content-tree SHA. If the parent cannot be fetched or sources disagree, stop; silently widening or narrowing a stacked review is not valid evidence. A parent-head or branch change invalidates this result and every result above it in the stack.

Run quality once per layer against its direct parent. For the fifth/top layer, also run both review tracks cumulatively against origin/main; the layer passes only when both the incremental and cumulative gates are empty. Record both bindings. A lower-parent change cascades invalidation through all higher-layer bindings, so the coordinator must sync/rebase the stack and rerun them in order.

A new service or module added but not yet committed will not appear in the tracked diff. Fold the untracked files from git status into the review set and read their full contents — an unreviewed new file is the easiest place for a Blocker to hide.

Windows parity rules

Windows parity is a default requirement, not a conditional check. Every change reviewed here must work on the Windows build of ADE. Windows is part of "done"; it is never a follow-up. Review every changed file for Windows behavior even when the diff looks unrelated to paths or processes — the regressions that ship are the ones nobody thought to look for. references/windows-quirks.md holds the concrete failure classes and the named helper that resolves each one; read it before raising or dismissing a Windows finding.

When parity is not achievable, stop and gate it (Synthesis step 8, reason three). Do not ship a half-working surface and do not quietly gate the whole product. The decision procedure:

  1. Name the capability, not the feature. "Native window screenshot capture", not "Computer Use".

  2. State the OS-level reason it cannot work on Windows — the missing API, the absent primitive, the security model. "Not implemented yet" is not a parity blocker; that is work you owe.

  3. Say what macOS and Linux keep. If they keep it, this is a per-platform divergence the human must approve, not an implementation detail.

  4. Present three options with a recommendation:

    • Hidden — the surface does not exist on Windows. Nothing to discover, no explanation given. Right when the capability is not something a user would look for.
    • Disabled with a reason shown — the control is visible, inert, and says why. Right when a user would otherwise hunt for a missing feature, or when macOS docs/screenshots reference it.
    • Removed — deleted from the Windows build entirely, including its code path, settings, and IPC surface. Right when the half-feature carries real cost to keep.

    Hidden and disabled are different user experiences, so the human picks per item — never apply one answer across a batch.

  5. State the blast radius: which settings, IPC routes, docs, and tests change under each option.

When the scoped diff touches filesystem paths, process launch, executable resolution, IPC, SQLite/native modules, startup services, or Computer Use, these additional checks apply:

  • Treat Windows as a first-class runtime. Verify drive letters, native and mixed separators, UNC paths, quoting, PATHEXT and executable discovery. Audit PowerShell, cmd.exe, and Git Bash invocation separately for argument loss, shell injection, and environment drift. Require process-tree termination, per-user/per-channel named-pipe ACL isolation, Stable/Beta identity isolation, semantic runtime readiness (not merely a live supervisor PID), stale-PID cleanup, bounded supervisor restart/backoff, and packaged native dependencies.
  • Trace installer, updater, signing, Windows Firewall, Relay, and capability-gate effects. Verify IPC/preload/shared contracts, CLI/RPC, SQLite/CRR, mobile, hosted web, and release-manifest compatibility rather than treating a native host fix as isolated.
  • Require platform gates to state the capability, not infer the whole product is unsupported. Native screenshot/video/OS GUI automation may be blocked on Windows while App Control and proof-file ingestion remain available.
  • Trace the same change through macOS and Linux owners and tests. A Windows fix that regresses launchd, Unix sockets, POSIX executable lookup, or graceful Linux capability degradation is a correctness finding.
  • Separate code-backed evidence from external proof. Native Windows tests and CI can prove contracts; installed Stable/Beta isolation, second-account pipe denial, clean-host restart, and GUI evidence remain explicit blockers until captured on the corresponding hosts.

Step 0: Open the PR early

Before the review starts, follow Early PR and harvests → Open in docs/playbooks/ship-lane.md: checkpoint commit, push, open the PR ready for review (not a draft), and write the ship state with status: "prepping". Then start Phase 1 immediately — do not wait for CI or the bots.

Skip this step only when the branch is main, the tree holds changes that do not belong to this lane, or the user asked for no PR. Say which one applied. When a PR already exists, push the checkpoint only if HEAD is ahead of the remote and the push rule allows it. When a ship state file already exists (a re-run on a lane in prepping or running), keep its status, iteration, and handled comment ids; the playbook's Open step 5 says which fields change.

Do not push again while the review runs. Each push restarts Greptile's 15–25-minute review.


Phase 1: Thermo Dual-Review → Synthesize + Fix

Track A — Correctness & Security (always runs)

Apply all three reference files:

  1. references/correctness-security-review.md — diff-scoped audit for bugs, changes that break existing features (trace cross-app/IPC side effects), devex breakage, and the ADE security surface (computer-use policy & artifact ownership, plaintext secrets, runtime action allowlists, sync/CRR data integrity). Calibrate severity honestly; never present a finding with unfinished research.
  2. references/ade-review-rules.md — ADE-specific correctness: runtime-backed null services on bypassed IPC routes, daemon action-domain wiring, cr-sqlite CRR constraints, mobile-host compatibility, IPC/preload/shared/renderer contract drift, fast-tier loading, Node/test-env gotchas, worktree path discipline, and the surface coverage sweep (entry points, clients, providers, reverse states, connection modes — rule 11).
  3. references/windows-quirks.md — the Windows failure classes ADE has actually hit and the named helper that resolves each one. Windows parity is a default requirement (see Windows parity rules above), so this file applies to every diff, not only obviously path-or-process work.

Return prioritized findings. Mark each fix unambiguous + behavior-preserving (synthesis may auto-apply) or needs human judgment (synthesis surfaces it).

Track B — Maintainability (always runs)

Apply references/thermo-nuclear-review.md — the 7 structural standards: structural simplification, file-size threshold (1k-line rule), spaghetti prevention, design over acceptance, direct code, type/boundary clarity, canonical layer logic.

For each finding: cite file:line, name the standard, describe the judo move (the smallest change that resolves it structurally), and mark whether it is behavior-preserving. This track is the simplification arm — its applied moves are handled by the synthesis step below, not a separate phase.

UI primitives (whenever the diff touches apps/desktop/src/renderer/**). Run npm run lint:ci in apps/desktop. Every ade-ui/* warning in a file this branch touched is a finding to fix, not just the ones the ratchet fails on. Fix it by moving to the primitive the message names, then run npm run lint:baseline so the lower count is locked in. Never raise the baseline to make a violation pass. Then read the touched UI by eye for hand-rolled notice or dialog styling the lint cannot see: a card that copies the banner look (tone border plus icon tile) instead of <Banner>, a corner card instead of showToast, a custom scrim and panel instead of <Dialog>, a class constant carrying fixed or z-[N], a toast durationMs or banner tone that contradicts docs/design/notices.md. Cite the doc section in the finding.

Show full SKILL.md (1,067 more words)Show less
Synthesis (lead step, after both tracks finish)
  1. Collect all findings from Tracks A and B.

  2. Dedupe — when both tracks report the same file:line/issue, merge into one finding and weight it more heavily (overlap = higher signal).

  3. Severity-rank every finding: Blocker / High / Medium / Low (see the definitions in references/correctness-security-review.md).

  4. Verify before applying. Findings are advisory, not orders. For each one, confirm it against the real code path and adjacent files before touching anything. Reject unrealistic edge cases, speculative risks, and fixes that over-complicate. A finding you can't confirm in the code is dropped, not applied. Capability-claim check. Treat prose about permissions, timing, provider support, lifecycle, or automatic notifications as a claim to verify, not as evidence. Find the implementation path and the test that pins it. If the behavior is load-bearing and no test pins it, list it for /test as a coverage gap. Do not add the test in /quality. /test adds one only when it can name the behavior, the failure that turns the test red, and why no existing test already catches that.

  5. Sweep the bug class. When an accepted finding is a repeated pattern, scan the diff scope for sibling instances and fix them together — stop at touched surfaces and owner boundaries; no refactor beyond the class.

  6. Apply every finding you accepted in step 4 — all of them, whatever the severity. Verified means valid; valid means fix it. Medium and Low are not a backlog, and "behavior-preserving" describes how you apply a fix, not which findings earn one. This is the entire point of the skill: a run that surfaces real problems and leaves them in the code has cost the user tokens and returned nothing.

    Fix correctness findings and Track B judo moves alike. If a fix is genuinely large (a multi-file extraction, a schema migration), it is still yours to do — do it here, in this run, not "as a follow-up".

  7. Re-review the fix delta, with a cap. If step 6 changed code, re-run both mandatory tracks, A and B, on the fix delta — the changes step 6 made, with the full touched files as context. The rest of the branch was already reviewed in this run; do not review it again. New accepted findings → verify (4), apply (6), and re-check the new fix delta. This catches fix-induced correctness regressions and maintainability debt before /test or /ship.

    Cap: one full review, then at most two delta re-reviews. If the second delta re-review still finds a Blocker, High, or Medium, fix it and run one last delta check. Do not loop further:

    • Fix a Blocker, High, or Medium from the last check, but leave it out of the reviewed range: set qualityReviewedSha (step 10) to the commit before that fix, so the next delta review at push time covers it.
    • List a Low from the last check under Leftovers in the summary. It is not a gate row and does not block /ship.

    A long chain of re-reviews usually chases fix-induced regressions, not real progress. The cap never moves a finding to the gate; only step 8's three reasons do that.

  8. Gate — the narrow exception, not the escape hatch. Only three kinds of accepted finding may go to the gate unfixed:

    • it needs a product decision you cannot make (which of two valid behaviors the user wants), or
    • the fix is not behavior-preserving and changing behavior is not what this branch was asked to do, or
    • Windows parity is not achievable for a capability this branch adds or touches. Halt and ask; do not decide this one yourself. The row must carry the full decision procedure from Windows parity rules above: the exact capability, the OS-level reason, whether macOS/Linux keep it, and the hide / disable-with-reason / remove options with your recommendation. A capability that merely has not been ported yet is not this reason — that is a fix you owe under step 6.

    "Structural", "large", "risky", "pre-existing", "out of scope for this PR", and "worth doing deliberately" are not gate reasons — those are fixes you owe. If you gate a finding, the report must say which of the three reasons applies and what decision you need. Anything in the Gate table blocks the merge until the author resolves it; /ship treats a non-empty gate as a stop.

    A finding you neither fixed nor gated is a bug in your run.

  9. Harvest the PR (mandatory when a PR exists). After the independent review, follow Early PR and harvests → Harvest in the ship playbook. Run node scripts/ship-poll.mjs --pr <n> --text and act on all of it: CI, open review threads, review-body findings (bots put findings outside the diff there, not in a thread), new comments and bot notices. Do not wait for anything still running, and do not substitute a hand-written check. Drop comments this run already fixed. Verify each remaining comment like a Track A/B finding (step 4), then fix it (step 6) and re-review the fix delta (step 7). Rerun each failed CI test file locally. Fix the failures the code causes, and pass the failures the test itself causes to /test.

  10. Commit and apply the push rule. Commit the reviewed tree (quality: apply review fixes) and record its SHA as qualityReviewedSha in the ship state — but only when every change in that commit passed a clean review. When step 7's cap left a final fix unreviewed, keep qualityReviewedSha at the commit before that fix, so the delta review at push time covers it. Stage only this lane's files; never commit changes that belong to another lane. When Step 0 was skipped and no ship state exists, only commit, print qualityReviewedSha in the summary, and do not push — /ship Phase 0 reads it from the summary. If every signal on the remote head is terminal, run the playbook's Commit-bound quality revalidation. When qualityReviewedSha is HEAD, the delta is empty and this only binds and pushes. When the cap left a fix outside it, review that delta first, like any other push. This starts round 2, which runs while /test works. If a bot is still in flight, hold the commit and let /test push it.


Completion

Output a summary. The Gate section is what /test and /ship consume, and a non-empty gate blocks the merge. List only findings you could not fix for one of the two permitted reasons — not findings you chose to defer.

markdown
## Quality Summary

### Thermo Dual-Review
- Findings: [total] (Blocker [n] / High [n] / Medium [n] / Low [n])
- Auto-applied: [count] (safe correctness fixes + structural judo moves)
- Re-review passes: [n]
- Reviewed head: `qualityReviewedSha` [sha]
- Leftovers (Low, found by the last capped check): [list | none]

### PR harvest
- PR: #[n] ([opened by this run | existing | skipped — reason])
- CI: [n failed → n fixed here, n passed to /test | all green | n jobs still running]
- Bots: [n comments → n fixed, n already fixed, n rejected with reason | pending: names]
- Push: [pushed [sha], round 2 running | held — [bot] in flight on [sha]]
- For /test: [failing test files caused by the test itself, and coverage gaps from step 4 | none]

### Gate (MERGE-BLOCKING — every row needs an author decision)
Only three reasons belong here: a product decision you cannot make; a fix that
is not behavior-preserving on a branch that was not asked to change behavior; or
a capability whose Windows parity is not achievable. Empty is the expected
outcome. "Structural / large / out of scope" is not a gate reason — those get
fixed above.

When empty, print exactly:

- Empty.

Do not print a table. When non-empty, replace `- Empty.` with a table containing
only real findings and these columns: Severity, file:line, Finding, Which gate
reason, Decision needed. Never leave an example or placeholder row that another
skill could mistake for a live gate. A Windows-parity row's "Decision needed"
cell must state the capability, the OS-level reason, macOS/Linux status, and the
hide / disable-with-reason / remove options with your recommendation.

Next: /test (pass it the "For /test" list and the accepted correctness
findings; it adds a test only where no existing test would catch the bug).

**Before you print this:** every accepted finding is in "Auto-applied", the
Gate section, or (Low from the last capped check only) Leftovers. If one is in neither, go back to step 6 and fix it.

© arul28, AGPL-3.0. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file

Files

SKILL.md and 4 other files (references) in .agents/skills/quality of arul28/ADE.

  • SKILL.md
  • references/ade-review-rules.md
  • references/correctness-security-review.md
  • references/thermo-nuclear-review.md
  • references/windows-quirks.md

Open the folder on GitHubat commit 7390d95

Compare with similar skills

Quality next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.

Quality compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Quality this skillarul28/ADE113—~5.6kAutomated safety check: PassAGPL-3.0
Iptvnator Sqlite DB Worker4gray/iptvnator7.3k—~824Automated safety check: PassMIT
Analyze Nsys Profilemlc-ai/pith-train355—~1.9kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0
Reactive Sqlite UIfastrepl/anarlog9.4k—~699Automated safety check: PassMIT
Composer Forensicsdxos/dxos525—~3.1kAutomated safety check: PassCustom licence
Sqlite Schema Designfastrepl/anarlog9.4k—~1.9kAutomated safety check: PassMIT

Similar skills

  • A skill your agent uses when changing Electron SQLite IPC, database-worker operations, request-scoped progress or cancellation, worker packaging, or runtime verification of non-EPG database work.

    7.3k GitHub stars~824 tokensUpdated yesterday
    DatabasesAuto-check passed
  • Analyze Nsys Profile

    mlc-ai/pith-train

    Query a captured PithTrain Nsight Systems profile to measure compute/communication overlap, locate exposed comm by DualPipeV stage, and inspect per-rank stream behavior.

    355 GitHub stars~1.9k tokensUpdated 3 days ago
    DatabasesAuto-check passed
  • Reactive Sqlite UI

    fastrepl/anarlog

    Build SQLite-backed reactive UI in apps/desktop using stable patterns for reads, selection, forms, writes, and loading states.

    9.4k GitHub stars~699 tokensUpdated today
    DatabasesAuto-check passed
  • Forensically inspect and repair Composer browser profiles — offline (Chrome OPFS / SQLite extract) or live via /recovery.html debug port.

    525 GitHub stars~3.1k tokensUpdated today
    DatabasesAuto-check passed
  • Sqlite Schema Design

    fastrepl/anarlog

    Design or review schemas for crates/cloudsync using SQLite Sync constraints, not generic SQLite advice.

    9.4k GitHub stars~1.9k tokensUpdated today
    DatabasesAuto-check passed
  • Makemigrations

    deusXmachina-dev/memorylane

    Create SQLite migrations for MemoryLane storage schema changes.

    121 GitHub stars~973 tokensUpdated yesterday
    DatabasesAuto-check passed

More from arul28/ADE

All 30 skills in this repo
  • Ade App Control

    arul28/ADE

    A skill your agent uses when you need to run or drive a local Electron/desktop app and capture what it does — launch it or attach to a running renderer, read its logs or answer its terminal prompts…

    113 GitHub stars~3.4k tokensUpdated today
    Auto-check passed
  • Iteratively optimize an ADE tab's CPU/memory/IPC/render performance.

    113 GitHub stars~4.2k tokensUpdated today
    Auto-check passed
  • Ade Browser

    arul28/ADE

    A skill your agent uses for any browser behavior at all — opening a URL, checking a localhost page, clicking or filling a form, logging in, screenshotting, inspecting the DOM, or verifying a page…

    113 GitHub stars~2.8k tokensUpdated today
    Auto-check passed
  • Ade Deeplinks

    arul28/ADE

    A skill your agent uses when an agent needs to mint, share, or open ADE deeplinks (lane, work session, file, commit, artifact, branch, PR, Linear issue) so users — or the agent itself — can jump…

    113 GitHub stars~3.2k tokensUpdated today
    Auto-check passed
  • Ade Harnesses

    arul28/ADE

    A skill your agent uses when you need to run a chat, a CLI session, or a subagent on a specific setup — any model you pay for inside any harness (e.g.

    113 GitHub stars~1.6k tokensUpdated today
    Auto-check passed
  • Ade Lanes Git

    arul28/ADE

    A skill your agent uses when creating, inspecting, syncing, committing, pushing, archiving, or rebasing ADE lanes and lane worktrees through ade lanes and ade git.

    113 GitHub stars~594 tokensUpdated today
    Auto-check passed

Works with

Categories

Questions about Quality

What does Quality do?

Make the code correct, clean, and current. An agent skill from arul28/ADE. Quality is an agent skill from arul28/ADE. Make the code correct, clean, and current.

When should I use Quality?

Quality fits situations like: databases work in your project.

How do I install Quality in Claude Code?

Run `npx skills add arul28/ADE --skill quality -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (.agents/skills/quality in arul28/ADE) into .claude/skills/quality in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.

How do I install Quality in Codex?

Run `npx skills add arul28/ADE --skill quality -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (.agents/skills/quality in arul28/ADE) into .agents/skills/quality in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use Quality in Cursor, Gemini CLI or GitHub Copilot?

Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add arul28/ADE --skill quality -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/quality, .gemini/skills/quality, .github/skills/quality and .opencode/skills/quality in your project.

What does Quality need to run?

Going by SKILL.md and its folder, Quality needs the command-line tools its instructions call (git, npm, gh and node).

Does Quality access the network?

SKILL.md contains no URLs. Its commands use git, npm and gh, which can reach the network depending on how they are called. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.

Is Quality safe to install?

Our automated static check of SKILL.md found no risky patterns, such as piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files or hidden Unicode. It is not a guarantee. Review the folder before installing.

What licence does Quality use?

Quality is published under the AGPL-3.0 licence (the repository's licence). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.

How many tokens does Quality use?

About 5.6k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 23k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full. Its references folder adds about 10k tokens, read only when the agent opens those files.

What are the alternatives to Quality?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with Quality: Iptvnator Sqlite DB Worker (4gray/iptvnator, 7.3k stars), Analyze Nsys Profile (mlc-ai/pith-train, 355 stars), Reactive Sqlite UI (fastrepl/anarlog, 9.4k stars) and Composer Forensics (dxos/dxos, 525 stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains Quality?

arul28 (a GitHub user) maintains it in arul28/ADE, which has 113 GitHub stars. The repository holds 30 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on October 7, 2026.

Source: arul28/ADE on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.