/qa-quarto

name: qa-quarto
description: Adversarial Quarto vs Beamer QA. Critic finds issues, fixer applies fixes, loops until APPROVED (max 5 rounds).
argument-hint: "[LectureN]"
allowed-tools: ["Read", "Grep", "Glob", "Write", "Edit", "Bash", "Task"]
context: fork

Adversarial Quarto vs Beamer QA Workflow

Compare Quarto HTML slides against their Beamer PDF benchmark using an iterative critic/fixer loop.

**Philosophy:** The Beamer PDF is the gold standard. The Quarto translation must be at least as good in every dimension.

---

Workflow

Phase 0: Pre-flight → Phase 1: Critic audit → Phase 2: Fixer → Phase 3: Re-audit → Loop until APPROVED (max 5 rounds)

Hard Gates (Non-Negotiable)

| Gate | Condition | |------|-----------| | **Overflow** | NO content cut off | | **Plot Quality** | Interactive charts >= static plots | | **Content Parity** | No missing slides/equations/text | | **Visual Regression** | Quarto >= Beamer in all dimensions | | **Slide Centering** | Content centered, no jumping | | **Notation Fidelity** | All math verbatim from Beamer |

Phase 0: Pre-flight

1. Locate Beamer (.tex/.pdf) and Quarto (.qmd/.html) files 2. Check freshness (re-render if QMD newer than HTML) 3. Verify TikZ SVGs if applicable

Phase 1: Initial Audit

Launch the `quarto-critic` agent to compare Beamer vs Quarto comprehensively. Report saved to `quality_reports/[Lecture]_qa_critic_round1.md`.

Phase 2: Fix Cycle

If not APPROVED, launch `quarto-fixer` agent to apply fixes (Critical → Major → Minor), re-render, and verify.

Phase 3: Re-Audit

Re-launch critic to verify fixes. Loop back to Phase 2 if needed.

Iteration Limits

Max 5 fix rounds. After that, escalate to user with remaining issues.

Final Report

Save to `quality_reports/[Lecture]_qa_final.md` with hard gate status, iteration summary, and remaining issues.