Qa Quarto

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)

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 — loop-until-dry

This is the loop-until-dry primitive from `orchestrator-protocol.md`: the critic returns FINDINGs (the hard-gate table is the CRITICAL roll-up, per `orchestration-schemas.md`); the loop converges when a round adds 0 new CRITICAL/MAJOR findings (deduped on location+finding), not at a fixed round count.

• Fallback cap: 5 rounds bounds a non-converging loop, then escalate to the user with remaining issues.
• Two-strikes: the same gate failing in rounds N and N+2 is flagged for the user, not patched again (`summary-parity.md`).
• APPROVED iff every hard gate passes (zero CRITICAL).

Final Report

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