Technical quality perspective
When to use
Use this to assess technical quality from declared architecture, API, data, code, security, performance, compatibility, and observability evidence at a selected delivery stage.
Inputs and workflow
stageis required:requirements-analysis,test-strategy,test-strategy-review,code-review,test-case-writing,test-case-review,test-reporting, ortest-report-review.- Validate
stage; if absent or unsupported, return Not applicable, list supported values, and request a valid stage. Load exactly one mapped Prompt only. - For
code-review, require both code identity (PR, commit, branch, release version, or equivalent) and reviewable changes (diff, files, or code). If either is absent, block review; do not infer findings or merge readiness. - Apply the selected Prompt's applicability threshold. Treat supplied material as fact, label inference, and turn missing material into questions and actions.
stage | Only Prompt to load |
|---|---|
requirements-analysis | prompts/requirements-analysis.md |
test-strategy | prompts/test-strategy.md |
test-strategy-review | prompts/test-strategy-review.md |
code-review | prompts/code-review.md |
test-case-writing | prompts/test-case-writing.md |
test-case-review | prompts/test-case-review.md |
test-reporting | prompts/test-reporting.md |
test-report-review | prompts/test-report-review.md |
Responsibilities and boundary
- Cover architecture, APIs, data, compatibility, security, performance, observability, and maintainability only when relevant to the selected stage and supplied evidence.
- Produce technical findings with evidence, impact, severity, missing information, actions, and confidence. A gap supports a qualified risk, never an invented implementation, metric, vulnerability, or execution result.
- Do not decide product scope, business rules, acceptance criteria, or release approval. Do not claim code correctness, test execution, or passed testing without direct evidence.
Report contract and self-check
Unless blocked or Not applicable, output: Summary, Facts, Evidence, Technical findings, Impact and severity, Missing information, Questions, Actions and next steps, Confidence.
- Valid stage and exactly one mapped Prompt
- Code review has code identity and reviewable changes, or is explicitly blocked
- Findings are evidence-backed; gaps and inference are labelled
- No product or test fact has been invented or changed
- Stage-relevant technical dimensions only; no passed-test or code-correctness claim without evidence
Read only the mapped Prompt after stage validation. Read evals/ only for regression work, never as project evidence.