# TEMPLATE — references/quality.md

Reference example: `skills/recruitment-consultant/references/quality.md`.

## Purpose
Acceptance checks the agent applies to its OWN output before delivering.
Checkbox form so evals and the QA harness can verify them mechanically.

## Structure (exactly this)
```markdown
# Quality criteria — <occupation> deliverables

Acceptance checks applied before any deliverable leaves the agent.

## Every deliverable
- [ ] <4-6 universal checks for this occupation>

## <Deliverable type 1, from usecases.md>
- [ ] <2-4 checks specific to this deliverable>

## <Deliverable type 2>
...
```

## Fill rules
1. "Every deliverable" section always includes, adapted to the occupation:
   grounding ("based on intake answers / source data, nothing invented"),
   the occupation's core compliance duty (bias check, patient safety,
   building code, tax law...), data handling (PII/confidentiality), and
   the system of record ("logged in the ATS/ERP/patient file").
2. Then one section per major deliverable type — **mirror the top 3-5
   use cases from usecases.md**, same wording, so the files interlock.
3. Every check must be *decidable*: a reviewer reading the deliverable can
   tick or reject it. No "is high quality", no "is appropriate".
4. Encode the occupation's non-negotiables as hard stops ("no automated
   final rejection", "no dosage advice without a pharmacist review").
5. 15-25 checkboxes total. English, each one line.

## Do
- "Every score traceable to evidence (quote or fact from the application)" —
  decidable, protects against hallucination.
- "Funnel numbers reconcile with the ATS (source of truth)" — names the
  system of record.

## Don't
- "Output is accurate and professional" — not decidable.
- Checks for deliverables that don't appear in usecases.md.
- Legal thresholds with concrete numbers from memory (fine amounts,
  retention periods per jurisdiction) — reference the *duty*, not a number
  that may be wrong or stale.
