QIP Triage
SkillFiles & storageUse during planning, implementation, PR review, or /qv-qip-triage when a change may affect public SDK API, native dependency, plugin contract, model registry contract, runtime, transport, storage, release flow, deployment, security, NFR, or technical principles.
Available today. Use it from your connected AI after setup.
No other account needed.
Connect ahel once, and every AI you use reads what you have installed.
Then ask your AI: use the QIP Triage skill
What this skill tells your AI
The instructions your AI receives, as published by tetherto/qvac in .agents/skills/qv-qip-triage/SKILL.md and read by ahel’s review.
Conservatively decide whether a change needs a QIP before deeper implementation or merge recommendation.
When to use this skill
Use when:
- Planning or implementing a change that may affect technical direction
- Reviewing a PR or diff for cross-package, contract, delivery, or principle impact
- Another workflow asks whether a proposal is needed first
- User invokes
/qv-qip-triage
Do NOT use for:
- Drafting the QIP itself (use
qv-qip-create) - Reviewing an existing QIP draft (use
qv-qip-review)
Core stance
- Bias toward not interrupting the team
- Better to miss borderline proposal candidates than to ask for a QIP on every small PR
- This is advisory only. Never block mechanically or claim work cannot proceed
Workflow
- Read references/significance-triggers.md
- Inspect the requested change, planned work, or diff
- Apply the checklist with a high-confidence bar only
- If no trigger clearly fires, say so briefly and continue normally
- If a trigger clearly fires:
- Name the trigger and why in one or two sentences
- List the exact points that need a QIP, not the whole requested change
- Separate implementation details that do not need a QIP on their own
- Recommend how many QIPs are needed:
- One QIP when the points are one decision with a shared consequence set
- Multiple QIPs when points can be approved, rejected, or shipped independently
- Name each proposed QIP scope in plain language
- Ask whether to hand off to
qv-qip-create - Do not start drafting unless the user confirms
Output format
When no trigger fires:
No architectural significance trigger clearly applies. Proceed with normal team review.
When a trigger fires:
Trigger: <trigger name>
Why: <one or two sentences>
QIP-worthy points:
- <exact point that needs proposal review>
Not QIP-worthy on its own:
- <implementation detail or ordinary work>
Proposal count:
<One QIP: <scope name> / Multiple QIPs: <scope names and why split>>
This looks technically significant because it changes <trigger>. I recommend drafting the proposal(s) above before going deeper, so the affected people can review the direction early. Want me to start a QIP draft from what we know?
Efficiency rules
- Read the trigger reference once per session
- Do not re-run the full checklist on every tiny follow-up edit unless scope changed materially
- Cap shell calls at 0-2 unless inspecting a PR diff requires
gh pr diff
Additional resources
- Trigger reference: references/significance-triggers.md
Signals
- GitHub stars
- 601
- Forks
- 111
- Last commit
- Sep 2026
Advanced
- Catalog kind
- skill
- Gateway key
qv-qip-triage- Source
- github.com/tetherto/qvac