QIP Triage

SkillFiles & storage

Use 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.

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

  1. Read references/significance-triggers.md
  2. Inspect the requested change, planned work, or diff
  3. Apply the checklist with a high-confidence bar only
  4. If no trigger clearly fires, say so briefly and continue normally
  5. 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

Signals

GitHub stars
601
Forks
111
Last commit
Sep 2026
Advanced
Catalog kind
skill
Gateway key
qv-qip-triage
Source
github.com/tetherto/qvac