It's quite a meta tag... I'm not sure whether this is a great idea.
The biggest trouble I have is that quite a few of these questions would probably be off-topic. For example, the check-my-work / amirite questions are not really well fitted for our format. Code (like actual program code) for debugging should probably better go to Stack Overflow, Code Review, or similar. Chemistry.se is not a place where we do genuine research, so peer-review is probably also not our forte. Apart from that I fail to see how this tag would add anything to the question. The same applies to questions that want to know whether the made assumptions are correct. I think in those cases the question itself would be clear enough that a tag like this is superfluous.
While I have no objection of debugging electronic structure program's inputs, I fear that the level of these questions are strongly dependent on the problem at hand, especially if the asker might use a completely unfitting methodology. (I have seen too many researchgate questions about Gaussian errors, that with a thorough Google search could be resolved.) On the other hand there are legit problems, that are not yet covered. In those cases I think such a tag would be misplaced, as it essentially boils down to a methodology question.
While writing this, I'd have to conclude, that I am against such a tag.
 I am aware that I still have not drafted the long planned guidelines for such questions.