The review gate opens when the tests are green. Those tests were written by the same AI, in the same session, with the implementation in context — so they agree with the code instead of the requirement. Here’s how to tell, and what actually fixes it.
A shared skill and a team plugin make everyone fast. That’s the problem this post is about: when AI writes the code and a human clicks approve, who actually understood it? Two review gates — an automated one and a human one — keep the developer, not the AI, accountable.
In part 1 you turned a convention into a skill and committed it. This post is about the next problem: your real setup is a skill plus a review subagent plus a build hook plus an MCP server — and every developer needs the same one. A plugin packages all of it and ships it with one install command.
Every team has conventions that live in one person’s head and spread by code review. When you use Claude Code, that knowledge quietly forks: your setup knows your rules, nobody else’s does. Skills put the convention in the repo, so the whole team — and their AI — works the same way.