Prompt file imported from ThrennPL/zaia-framework (.github/prompts/quality-gate-validation.prompt.md). Copyright stays with the author.

Prompt: Quality Gate Validation

Name: quality-gate-validation
Author: ThrennPL

Intent

Run a quality-focused analytical cycle to validate artifact readiness against ZAIA quality gates and determine pass/pass_with_notes/fail outcome.

When to Use

Use this prompt before publication to project repository, before stakeholder review, or before delivery handover.

Execution Instructions

Assign TASK-ID in format T-{YYYYMMDD}-{NNN}.
Define target quality gate stage and artifact set.
Invoke Quality subagent with full input envelope.
Validate output envelope contract.
Apply confidence and escalation policy.
Return synthesized quality decision package with remediation path.

Mandatory Input Envelope for Quality Subagent

task_id
objective
working_context
permissions_scope
data_classification
required_confidence_threshold

Mandatory Output Envelope Validation

Require all fields:

status: completed | completed_with_notes | escalated | failed
technical_artifact
retrieval_first_performed: true | false
context_version
confidence_score and confidence_rationale
claim labels: FACT | INFERENCE | ASSUMPTION | UNCERTAIN
positive_foundations
remediation_proposals
role_specific_value
open_issues with blocking/non-blocking
episodic_memory_entry
source_links with freshness

Required Quality Validation Scope

Ensure the resulting artifact evaluates:

metadata completeness and ID conformity
internal consistency
cross-artifact consistency
ambiguity and duplicate findings
logical gap detection
traceability completeness
positive foundations supporting readiness
remediation proposals with sequence and re-validation trigger

Required Quality Outcome

Require one explicit status:

pass
pass_with_notes
fail

Include:

rationale
blocking vs non-blocking findings
release-readiness implication

Confidence and Escalation Rules

0.80-1.00: proceed normally
0.60-0.79: proceed with uncertainty annotations
0.40-0.59: escalate with partial validation and blockers
below 0.40: blocking escalation, stop publication

Publication Blocking Rule

If any blocking finding exists, do not classify as pass. If fail, include mandatory remediation sequence and re-validation trigger.

Output Handover Contract

Produce a synthesized handover package for:

Orchestrator synthesis
remediation owners
re-validation checkpoint planning

Include explicit notes on:

blockers requiring human decision
dependencies for remediation
minimum evidence needed for successful re-check

Constraints

No direct subagent-user communication.
No direct subagent MCP usage.
Do not output pass without evidence-linked findings.
Do not downplay blocking issues.

# Prompt: Quality Gate Validation ## Intent Run a quality-focused analytical cycle to validate artifact readiness against ZAIA quality gates and determine pass/pass_with_notes/fail outcome. ## When to Use Use this prompt before publication to project repository, before stakeholder review, or before delivery handover. ## Execution Instructions 1. Assign TASK-ID in format `T-{YYYYMMDD}-{NNN}`. 2. Define target quality gate stage and artifact set. 3. Invoke Quality subagent with full input envelope. 4. Validate output envelope contract. 5. Apply confidence and escalation policy. 6. Return synthesized quality decision package with remediation path. ## Mandatory Input Envelope for Quality Subagent - `task_id` - `objective` - `working_context` - `permissions_scope` - `data_classification` - `required_confidence_threshold` ## Mandatory Output Envelope Validation Require all fields: - `status`: completed | completed_with_notes | escalated | failed - `technical_artifact` - `retrieval_first_performed`: true | false - `context_version` - `confidence_score` and `confidence_rationale` - claim labels: FACT | INFERENCE | ASSUMPTION | UNCERTAIN - `positive_foundations` - `remediation_proposals` - `role_specific_value` - `open_issues` with blocking/non-blocking - `episodic_memory_entry` - `source_links` with freshness ## Required Quality Validation Scope Ensure the resulting artifact evaluates: - metadata completeness and ID conformity - internal consistency - cross-artifact consistency - ambiguity and duplicate findings - logical gap detection - traceability completeness - positive foundations supporting readiness - remediation proposals with sequence and re-validation trigger ## Required Quality Outcome Require one explicit status: - pass - pass_with_notes - fail Include: - rationale - blocking vs non-blocking findings - release-readiness implication ## Confidence and Escalation Rules - 0.80-1.00: proceed normally - 0.60-0.79: proceed with uncertainty annotations - 0.40-0.59: escalate with partial validation and blockers - below 0.40: blocking escalation, stop publication ## Publication Blocking Rule If any blocking finding exists, do not classify as pass. If fail, include mandatory remediation sequence and re-validation trigger. ## Output Handover Contract Produce a synthesized handover package for: - Orchestrator synthesis - remediation owners - re-validation checkpoint planning Include explicit notes on: - blockers requiring human decision - dependencies for remediation - minimum evidence needed for successful re-check ## Constraints - No direct subagent-user communication. - No direct subagent MCP usage. - Do not output pass without evidence-linked findings. - Do not downplay blocking issues.

{ "prompt": "# Prompt: Quality Gate Validation\n\n## Intent\nRun a quality-focused analytical cycle to validate artifact readiness against ZAIA quality gates and determine pass/pass_with_notes/fail outcome.\n\n## When to Use\nUse this prompt before publication to project repository, before stakeholder review, or before delivery handover.\n\n## Execution Instructions\n1. Assign TASK-ID in format `T-{YYYYMMDD}-{NNN}`.\n2. Define target quality gate stage and artifact set.\n3. Invoke Quality subagent with full input envelope.\n4. Validate output envelope contract.\n5. Apply confidence and escalation policy.\n6. Return synthesized quality decision package with remediation path.\n\n## Mandatory Input Envelope for Quality Subagent\n- `task_id`\n- `objective`\n- `working_context`\n- `permissions_scope`\n- `data_classification`\n- `required_confidence_threshold`\n\n## Mandatory Output Envelope Validation\nRequire all fields:\n- `status`: completed | completed_with_notes | escalated | failed\n- `technical_artifact`\n- `retrieval_first_performed`: true | false\n- `context_version`\n- `confidence_score` and `confidence_rationale`\n- claim labels: FACT | INFERENCE | ASSUMPTION | UNCERTAIN\n- `positive_foundations`\n- `remediation_proposals`\n- `role_specific_value`\n- `open_issues` with blocking/non-blocking\n- `episodic_memory_entry`\n- `source_links` with freshness\n\n## Required Quality Validation Scope\nEnsure the resulting artifact evaluates:\n- metadata completeness and ID conformity\n- internal consistency\n- cross-artifact consistency\n- ambiguity and duplicate findings\n- logical gap detection\n- traceability completeness\n- positive foundations supporting readiness\n- remediation proposals with sequence and re-validation trigger\n\n## Required Quality Outcome\nRequire one explicit status:\n- pass\n- pass_with_notes\n- fail\n\nInclude:\n- rationale\n- blocking vs non-blocking findings\n- release-readiness implication\n\n## Confidence and Escalation Rules\n- 0.80-1.00: proceed normally\n- 0.60-0.79: proceed with uncertainty annotations\n- 0.40-0.59: escalate with partial validation and blockers\n- below 0.40: blocking escalation, stop publication\n\n## Publication Blocking Rule\nIf any blocking finding exists, do not classify as pass.\nIf fail, include mandatory remediation sequence and re-validation trigger.\n\n## Output Handover Contract\nProduce a synthesized handover package for:\n- Orchestrator synthesis\n- remediation owners\n- re-validation checkpoint planning\n\nInclude explicit notes on:\n- blockers requiring human decision\n- dependencies for remediation\n- minimum evidence needed for successful re-check\n\n## Constraints\n- No direct subagent-user communication.\n- No direct subagent MCP usage.\n- Do not output pass without evidence-linked findings.\n- Do not downplay blocking issues.", "variables": [], "notes": "Include: - rationale - blocking vs non-blocking findings - release-readiness implication", "metadata": { "source": { "provider": "github-prompts", "repository": "https://github.com/ThrennPL/zaia-framework", "path": ".github/prompts/quality-gate-validation.prompt.md", "ref": "f10c32b490627a409fd30dc23e343db3ea87c67f", "url": "https://github.com/ThrennPL/zaia-framework/blob/f10c32b490627a409fd30dc23e343db3ea87c67f/.github/prompts/quality-gate-validation.prompt.md", "key": "ThrennPL/zaia-framework/.github/prompts/quality-gate-validation.prompt.md" } } }

quality-gate-validation

About