Best for
- Use when defining coverage, setting CI gates, managing flaky tests, choosing test layers, or establishing release criteria.
vasilyu1983/AI-Agents-public/frameworks/shared-skills/skills/qa-testing-strategy/SKILL.md
Risk-based test strategy for software delivery. Use when defining coverage, setting CI gates, managing flaky tests, choosing test layers, or establishing release criteria.
Decision brief
Risk-based quality engineering guidance for modern software delivery. Use this skill to decide what to test, at which layer, with which gates, and how to keep the signal trustworthy.
Compatibility matrix
| Platform | Status | Evidence | What to check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Codex | Declared | Source record | Install path and trigger |
| Claude Code | Declared | Source record | Install path and trigger |
| Cursor | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Gemini CLI | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
Installation
The source command is displayed only when detected. A safe inspection prompt is always available so your agent can explain every action before execution.
npx skills add https://github.com/vasilyu1983/AI-Agents-public --skill "frameworks/shared-skills/skills/qa-testing-strategy"Inspect the Agent Skill "qa-testing-strategy" from https://github.com/vasilyu1983/AI-Agents-public/blob/53f6cb73ea53a2646e3e7d4665062ad66f3683ac/frameworks/shared-skills/skills/qa-testing-strategy/SKILL.md at commit 53f6cb73ea53a2646e3e7d4665062ad66f3683ac. List every install step, command, network request, credential, file read/write, external action, and rollback step. Explain whether it fits my task. Do not install or execute anything until I approve.
Workflow
1. Clarify scope and risk: critical journeys, failure modes, compliance constraints, and non-functional risks. 2. Define quality signals: SLOs, budgets, contract checks, accessibility target, and what blocks merge vs deploy. 3. Choose the smallest effective layer first: unit, co…
Create or update a risk-based test strategy
Review the “Use Instead” section in the pinned source before continuing.
Review the “Quick Reference” section in the pinned source before continuing.
Use three distinct E2E scopes instead of one monolithic suite:
Permission review
The documentation includes network, browsing, or remote request actions.
Use web search or web fetch to verify current external facts, versions, pricing, deadlines, regulations, or platform behavior before final answers.Evidence record
| Signal | Value | Evidence type | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality score | 94/100 | Computed | Documentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules |
| Repository stars | 80 | Source | Repository attention, not individual Skill quality |
| Compatibility | 2 platforms | Source | Declared in the catalog source record |
| Usage guide | automated source guide | Editorial | Generated or reviewed according to the visible evidence level |
Pinned source
Risk-based quality engineering guidance for modern software delivery. Use this skill to decide what to test, at which layer, with which gates, and how to keep the signal trustworthy.
Start with references/operational-playbook.md for the navigation hub. Use current official sources from data/sources.json when you need vendor or standards guidance.
| Need | Skill |
|---|---|
| Implement or debug Playwright suites | qa-testing-playwright |
| Design API contract suites in depth | qa-api-testing-contracts |
| Debug failing tests or incidents | qa-debugging |
| Add observability, telemetry, or tracing | qa-observability |
| Test LLM agents or evaluations | qa-agent-testing |
| Mobile-specific strategy or automation | qa-testing-mobile |
| Security audit or threat-model depth | software-security-appsec |
| CI/CD pipeline design and infra | ops-devops-platform |
| Layer | Goal | Typical Use |
|---|---|---|
| Unit | Prove logic and invariants fast | Pure functions, domain rules, validators |
| Component | Validate UI behavior in a real browser with narrow scope | UI components, state transitions, accessibility smoke |
| Contract | Prevent breaking changes across service boundaries | OpenAPI, AsyncAPI, JSON Schema, Protobuf |
| Schema fuzzing | Stress the API contract with generated valid and invalid inputs | Request/response edge cases, parser and validation drift |
| Property-based | Verify universal invariants across generated input spaces | Serialization round-trips, numeric contracts, state-machine invariants, AI-code edge cases |
| Integration | Validate real boundaries and dependencies | API + DB, queues, adapters, auth flows |
| E2E | Validate thin critical journeys | Sign-up, checkout, publish, payment, admin recovery |
| Performance | Enforce budgets and capacity | Load, stress, soak, latency regression |
| Visual | Catch intentional vs accidental UI changes | Stable pages, design-system components |
| Accessibility | Check for common WCAG 2.2 failures early | axe smoke + manual audit plan |
| Security | Catch common web/API vulnerabilities early | SAST, DAST smoke, auth and dependency checks |
Use three distinct E2E scopes instead of one monolithic suite:
Rules:
Need to test: [Change or Risk]
│
├─ Pure business rule or invariant?
│ └─ Unit test
│
├─ UI behavior or component state in isolation?
│ └─ Component test in a real browser
│
├─ API compatibility between teams/services?
│ └─ Contract test
│
├─ API parser/validation edge cases against the schema?
│ └─ Schema-aware fuzzing + core integration smoke
│
├─ Real dependency boundary or persistence behavior?
│ └─ Integration test with real DB/queue/service doubles only at external edges
│
├─ User-critical cross-page workflow?
│ └─ Thin E2E test
│
├─ Universal invariant or property that should hold for all valid inputs?
│ └─ Property-based test (fast-check / Hypothesis / jqwik)
│
└─ Capacity, resilience, or reliability regression?
└─ Performance, resilience, or synthetic monitoring tests
| Signal | Default Target |
|---|---|
| PR gate | p50 <= 10 min, p95 <= 20 min |
| Mainline health | >= 99% green builds/day |
| Suite flake rate | <= 1% weekly |
| Quarantine policy | owner + ticket + expiry, never indefinite |
| AI-authored test oracle quality | mutation score gate on changed files (line coverage is not a gate); calibrate threshold to the suite, never accept AI tests on coverage alone |
Test strategy request
-> Clarify risks, critical journeys, constraints, and release criteria
-> Pick smallest proving layer: unit, component, contract, integration, E2E
-> Define merge gates, deploy gates, evidence artifacts, and owners
-> Add diagnostics: logs, traces, screenshots, request IDs, and dashboards
-> Set suite health policy: flake SLO, quarantine expiry, runtime budgets
-> Review production signals and incidents to evolve coverage
## Default Workflow, ## Decision Rules, and ## Principles for the baseline strategy sequence## Resources and ## Templates for deeper materials## Related Skills for tool-specific execution handoffs| Skill | Purpose |
|---|---|
| qa-refactoring | Safe refactoring with behavior preservation |
| software-code-review | Code review process and checklists |
| software-architecture-design | System design and architecture decisions |
Before applying this skill on a non-trivial task, read learnings.consolidated.md in this directory (and learnings.md if present).
After applying it, if you encountered a pattern worth remembering, a mistake worth preventing, or a domain fact that surprised you, append one dated bullet to learnings.md via agents-skills-feedback-loop/scripts/append_learning.py. Do not modify SKILL.md itself.
Frequently asked questions
Risk-based quality engineering guidance for modern software delivery. Use this skill to decide what to test, at which layer, with which gates, and how to keep the signal trustworthy.
The source record exposes this install command: npx skills add https://github.com/vasilyu1983/AI-Agents-public --skill "frameworks/shared-skills/skills/qa-testing-strategy". Inspect the command and pinned source before running it.
The pinned source record declares support for: codex, claude code.
Static rules flagged network in the source; the page lists the matching lines and excerpts.
Alternatives
vasilyu1983/AI-Agents-public
Guides iOS testing with XCTest, XCUITest, Swift Testing, simctl, and xcresult. Use when choosing destinations, controlling flakes, or parsing test artifacts for native apps.
lobu-ai/lobu
Set up new Lobu agents end to end and operate existing Lobu projects and memory: interview, scaffold, validate, authenticate, connect feeds, execute operations, and test Automations.
upex-galaxy/agentic-qa-boilerplate
Execute regression test suites via CI/CD, analyze results, classify failures, and produce GO/NO-GO release decisions. Use when running regression, smoke, or sanity suites through GitHub Actions, monitoring workflow runs, downloading Allure or Playwright artifacts, classifying failures (REGRESSION vs FLAKY vs KNOWN vs ENVIRONMENT vs NEW TEST), computing pass-rate and trend metrics, deciding release readiness, generating executive quality reports, or creating regression issues. Triggers on: run re
upex-galaxy/agentic-qa-boilerplate
Orchestrates in-sprint manual QA per ticket across Stages 1 (Planning), 2 (Execution) and 3 (Reporting). Use for user-story testing, bug retesting, and batch-sprint QA loops. Creates the PBI folder, drives session-start, runs the triage + veto + risk-score decision tree on bugs, produces the ATP + ATR + TC artifacts in the TMS, executes smoke and trifuerza (UI/API/DB) exploration, and files the final QA comment + bug reports. Triggers on: test this ticket, QA this user story, retest this bug, ve