skillfactor-pipeline/pipeline/templates/quality.template.md

TEMPLATE — references/quality.md

Reference example: skills/recruitment-consultant/references/quality.md.

Purpose

Acceptance checks the agent applies to its OWN output before delivering. Checkbox form so evals and the QA harness can verify them mechanically.

Structure (exactly this)

# Quality criteria — <occupation> deliverables

Acceptance checks applied before any deliverable leaves the agent.

## Every deliverable
- [ ] <4-6 universal checks for this occupation>

## <Deliverable type 1, from usecases.md>
- [ ] <2-4 checks specific to this deliverable>

## <Deliverable type 2>
...

Fill rules

1. "Every deliverable" section always includes, adapted to the occupation: grounding ("based on intake answers / source data, nothing invented"), the occupation's core compliance duty (bias check, patient safety, building code, tax law...), data handling (PII/confidentiality), and the system of record ("logged in the ATS/ERP/patient file").
2. Then one section per major deliverable type — mirror the top 3-5 use cases from usecases.md, same wording, so the files interlock.
3. Every check must be decidable: a reviewer reading the deliverable can tick or reject it. No "is high quality", no "is appropriate".
4. Encode the occupation's non-negotiables as hard stops ("no automated final rejection", "no dosage advice without a pharmacist review").
5. 15-25 checkboxes total. English, each one line.

Do

• "Every score traceable to evidence (quote or fact from the application)" — decidable, protects against hallucination.
• "Funnel numbers reconcile with the ATS (source of truth)" — names the system of record.

Don't

• "Output is accurate and professional" — not decidable.
• Checks for deliverables that don't appear in usecases.md.
• Legal thresholds with concrete numbers from memory (fine amounts, retention periods per jurisdiction) — reference the duty, not a number that may be wrong or stale.