Skills Compliance
Attesting a QA period
Somebody senior is being asked to confirm that quality was assured for a period, and their name goes on it. The purpose of an attestation is to make explicit what is actually being claimed — because the implied claim ("quality was good") is almost never what the evidence supports, and the person signing usually has not been told the difference.
npx rulebase-skills install cx-quality-attestationWhen to use it
Reach for this when someone says any of these — they are the phrases the skill itself triggers on:
- “sign off the QA period”
- “attest to our quality results”
- “monthly QA governance pack”
- “certify the quality figures”
How it works
The method, in the order the skill runs it. The full procedure — tables, worked examples and the edge cases — is in the skill itself.
State the claim precisely
Write what is being attested to, in one paragraph, and be pedantic about the verb. Defensible claims look like.
The evidence the attestation rests on
Enumerate it, with numbers: Coverage, Sampling, Grader mix, Human review rate on AI-graded evaluations, Disputes raised, resolved, and outstanding at period end, Actions arising, and their status.
Limitations, written by you
Every one of these applies to most programmes. State the ones that apply to yours, with numbers rather than adjectives: Segments where the instrument is weaker, Channels or queues not in scope, Data gaps.
Governance the attestation implies
An attestation is a control, so the control needs to work: Second-line review where the structure requires it, recorded.
When not to attest
Say this explicitly, because it is the situation the process exists for: Coverage collapsed in the period and nobody noticed until now, A whole segment has no evaluations and cannot be assured, The evidence cannot be reproduced.
Related skills
Free and open source, and vendor-neutral — it reads the conversations from whichever helpdesk you already run. Browse all 149 skills · connect your helpdesk over MCP · source on GitHub
