QA Checks [Beta]
Run a QA agent on your implementation to check functionality, code quality, and tests.
QA Checks let you run a separate QA agent against your implementation and get a short quality report. Use them when you want an independent check before you ask the coding agent for follow-up changes, open a pull request, or choose between implementations.
What is the difference between Guided Review and QA Checks? Guided Review helps you understand the diff and walks you through the code changes file-by-file in a logical order. QA Checks verify whether the agent's work satisfies the ticket requirements, passes relevant checks, and has enough test coverage to move forward. Run both when you want a readable walkthrough of the code changes and a separate quality signal for functionality, code quality, and tests.
Launching QA Checks
When the QA Checks beta is enabled, you'll see a QA Check tab in the implementation review panel, next to Full Diff and Guided Review. If no QA check exists yet, clicking the tab launches the QA agent.
The QA agent starts from the latest implementation diff. It applies the implementation's patch in a fresh QA environment, reads the original ticket and implementation conversation, then checks whether the work meets the ticket requirements.
If you have fan-in review enabled and your ticket has multiple implementations, QA checks will run automatically for all implementations on your ticket.
Which agent runs the QA check?
QA Checks use the best available coding agent for your project, preferring Claude Code with Opus 4.7 when available.
What the QA report includes
Once the run finishes, the QA Check tab shows:
- Overall score — A 0-5 score summarizing the QA agent's judgment.
- Summary checks — Whether the feature works, the linter passes, tests pass, and tests were added.
- Feature Functionality — Whether the implementation addresses the ticket requirements and works in the app when browser testing applies.
- Code Quality — Whether the code follows existing patterns, is easy to understand, passes formatting/linting, and avoids obvious maintainability issues.
- Tests — Whether tests pass, whether useful tests were added, and whether the test coverage is meaningful.
- Improvements Needed — Specific follow-up items when the QA agent finds gaps.
The QA agent is instructed to run the relevant test suite and linter when it can. It can also use browser automation to inspect the app for UI or workflow changes.
How scoring works
The QA agent returns separate 0-5 scores for feature functionality, code quality, and tests, then returns an overall 0-5 score.
Use the score as a quick signal:
| Score | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 5 | Complete, working, well-tested, and clean. |
| 4 | Good implementation with minor follow-up items. |
| 3 | Partially acceptable, but has meaningful gaps in behavior, quality, or tests. |
| 2 | Significant issues that should be fixed before review or merge. |
| 1 | Barely addresses the ticket. |
| 0 | No meaningful implementation or the agent could not verify it. |
The overall score is based on the QA agent's assessment of completeness, working behavior, code quality, and test evidence. It is not just a mechanical average of the three section scores.
Sending QA feedback back to the agent
Click Paste Into Chat to copy the QA report into the implementation chat draft. It does not send automatically, so you can edit the message before asking the coding agent to fix the issues.
If the implementation changes after the QA check was created, Superconductor marks the QA check as outdated and shows a Rerun button at the top of the QA tab. Click it to launch a fresh QA check against the latest diff.
Feedback
This feature is in beta and under active development. We'd love to hear how it's working for you — reach out to us with feedback, questions, or feature requests.