QUALITY.md
QUALITY.md is an open format for modeling quality:
what matters most, why, and how. Use it with the /quality agent skill to
continuously improve AI assistant and coding agent projects.
A QUALITY.md file is a Markdown file with a quality model and supporting
context. The /quality skill helps set up the file, evaluate quality, and
evolve the model as you learn. The qualitymd CLI provides support tooling for
validating QUALITY.md files, managing quality evaluations, and maintaining a
QUALITY.md workspace.
Install
- Install the agent skill:
npx skills add qualitymd/quality.md
- Install the CLI:
npm install -g quality.md
Usage
Invoke the /quality skill to manage quality for your project:
/quality setup Get started working with QUALITY.md
/quality wizard Have your AI assistant/agent help you manage quality
/quality evaluate Evaluate the quality of your project
/quality evaluate factor:root::security Evaluate a specific quality factor or characteristic
/quality evaluate area:payments-api Evaluate a specific area or project component
/quality evaluate factor:payments-api::maintainability
Evaluate an area's specific quality
Most users should work with QUALITY.md through their coding agent, the
/quality skill, or direct edits. The CLI is primarily support tooling for
validation, status, and evaluation records.
To keep the model visible to agents, add a short note to AGENTS.md or
CLAUDE.md:
See [QUALITY.md](./QUALITY.md) for how this project models and evaluates quality.
Why QUALITY.md
Manage Quality Debt
As software — and the agents that write it — moves faster, quality erodes
quietly through three accumulating debts:
- Technical debt — code drifting from where it should be.
- Cognitive debt — the mounting burden of understanding complex or
under-documented systems.
- Intent debt — software diverging from what stakeholders actually need.
QUALITY.md makes a team's quality expectations explicit and checkable, so those
gaps stay visible and addressable instead of compounding.
The three-debt framing draws on Margaret-Anne Storey, The Triple Debt of
Software Development (arXiv:2603.22106).
Working with QUALITY.md
A QUALITY.md file is your project's reward signal for quality — the
explicit, shared definition of good that aligns both your team and your coding
agents with what matters in this codebase. You capture it once, then run a
quality loop that keeps both the work and the signal sharp.
The quality loop:
- Align — agree on what good means for this context, and capture it as the
signal.
- Evaluate — grade the work against the signal; every gap is a gap in the
work or a gap in the bar.
- Improve — close the gaps in the work.
- Learn — feed what you learned back into the signal as the product and its
risks evolve.
Getting started
-
Run /quality setup to make your quality bar visible. Using available
context, the skill drafts a QUALITY.md with likely quality factors,
assessable requirements, needs, risks, unknowns, open questions, and
agent-accessibility gaps.
→ A shared starting point for what good means here: the expectations already
visible in the project, the judgments that still need human input, and the
context gaps agents and contributors need to close before they can know what
matters most.
-
Run /quality evaluate to see where you stand. The skill analyzes each
area of your project against the quality requirements defined in your model,
then provides ratings, findings, recommendations, and opportunities to improve
both the work and QUALITY.md itself.
→ A concrete read on where the work meets the bar, where it falls short, and
where the model needs to become clearer, more complete, or better grounded.
-
Review and act on the evaluation. Weigh the quality ratings for each area
and factor, use the findings to understand the evidence behind the gaps, and
apply the recommended actions or hand them off to your issue tracker.
→ Clear next steps from the evaluation: what to fix now, what to track for
later, and why each action matters.
-
Refine the model as you learn. Revise QUALITY.md when the evaluation
reveals missing context, unclear requirements, changed risks, or a quality bar
that no longer matches the project.
→ A quality bar that gets clearer and more useful every time you use it.
Tip: Discuss and apply changes to QUALITY.md with your agent. The
/quality skill applies authoring best practices so model changes stay
well-formed, grounded, and current, with meaningful changes recorded in the
quality log.
Keeping the skill and CLI current
Run /quality update to update the /quality agent skill and qualitymd
CLI. Keep them up to date to take advantage of the latest improvements to the
efficiency and efficacy of working with QUALITY.md files.
Keeping the loop running
Once you have a model, the loop keeps going at whatever cadence and trigger fits
your team:
-
On demand. Run /quality evaluate whenever you need a read — before a
ship, during code review, when you inherit an unfamiliar codebase, or when
something just feels off. Scope it down when you don't need the whole model:
/quality evaluate area:payments-api or
/quality evaluate factor:payments-api::security.
-
On a cadence. Make the model and its latest evaluation a recurring team
review — per sprint, per release, whatever your rhythm. Close gaps in the work,
and sharpen the model where the bar proved wrong, unclear, or out of date — so
the shared definition stays current as the product evolves.
-
Automated. Wire /quality evaluate into CI or a scheduled agent (Claude
Code routines, Codex automations) so quality is checked continuously, not just
when someone remembers. Surface results where the team already works — PR
comments, status checks, dashboards.
Example QUALITY.md
---
title: Support Inbox
ratingScale:
- level: outstanding
title: Outstanding
description: The work clearly exceeds the shared quality bar.
criterion: "Consistently exceeds the requirement with clear margin."
- level: target
title: Target
description: The work meets the shared quality bar.
criterion: "Meets the expected quality bar."
- level: minimum
title: Minimum
description: The work is acceptable, but has gaps worth improving.
criterion: "Meets the lowest acceptable bar, with visible gaps."
- level: unacceptable
title: Unacceptable
description: The work is below the shared quality bar.
criterion: "Falls below the minimum acceptable bar."
areas:
triage:
title: Triage
source: ./support
factors:
responsiveness:
title: Responsiveness
description: Customers receive timely, useful attention.
requirements:
"urgent messages are visible":
assessment: >
New messages are classified so urgent customer-impacting issues
are separated from routine requests.
accuracy:
title: Accuracy
description: Replies are correct, complete, and grounded in policy.
requirements:
"answers cite the current policy":
assessment: >
Customer-facing replies use the active support policy and do not
rely on outdated guidance or unsupported assumptions.
---
# Quality model: Support Inbox
## Overview
This model describes the quality bar for daily support triage. Good support
means urgent issues are easy to see, routine requests still move, and customers
receive answers grounded in the current policy.
## Scope
This model covers message triage and written replies in the support workspace.
It does not cover billing system behavior or product incident response.
Specification
The full format is specified in SPECIFICATION.md.
File Structure
A QUALITY.md file has two layers:
- YAML frontmatter — the structured quality model.
- Markdown body — the judgment context, rationale, scope, needs, risks,
unknowns, and open questions that help people and agents build, interpret,
and evaluate the model.
The document begins with the YAML frontmatter. The Markdown body can be empty,
but it is where the model explains its purpose and context.
Model Schema
The root model is an area plus a model-wide ratingScale.
title: <string> # Required
description: <string> # Optional
ratingScale: # Required, ordered best to worst
- level: <rating-level-id> # Required, unique within the scale
title: <string> # Required
description: <string> # Recommended
criterion: <string> # Required
source: <string> # Optional
factors: # Optional*
<factor-name>:
title: <string> # Required
description: <string> # Recommended
factors: # Optional
<sub-factor-name>: <Factor>
requirements: # Optional
<requirement-statement>: <Requirement>
requirements: # Optional*
<requirement-statement>:
assessment: <string> # Required, exactly one
factors: [<factor-name>] # Required for direct area requirements
ratings: # Optional per-level criteria
<rating-level-id>: <criterion>
areas: # Optional*
<area-name>: <Area>
At least one of factors, requirements, or areas must be supplied.
Areas can nest recursively. ratingScale exists only on the root model.
Core Concepts
| Concept |
Meaning |
| Model |
The root quality model in a QUALITY.md file. |
| Area |
The thing being evaluated. |
| Source |
The material assessed for an area, such as a path or selector. |
| Factor |
A quality dimension that matters for an area. |
| Requirement |
A specific quality expectation. |
| Assessment |
The means of checking a requirement against an area source. |
| Finding |
An observation produced by an assessment. |
| Rating Scale |
The ordered model-wide scale used to rate results. |
CLI Quick Reference
| Task |
Command |
| Show format spec |
qualitymd spec |
| Show frontmatter schema |
qualitymd schema |
| Create a starter file |
qualitymd init [path] |
| Validate a file |
qualitymd lint [path] |
| Fix lint issues |
qualitymd lint --fix [path] |
| Show project status |
qualitymd status [path] --json |
| Show version info |
qualitymd version --json |
| Check for updates |
qualitymd update --check |
| Show command help |
qualitymd <command> --help |
Status
The QUALITY.md format, qualitymd CLI, and /quality skill are early and
under active development. Expect the format and tooling to change as they
mature.
Contributing
Contributor setup and local tasks live in CONTRIBUTING.md.