agentleFS
ChariereFiedlerChariereFiedler/ronce-racine/skills/qa-session-intake/SKILL.md

qa-session-intake

Skill9 starsChanged 23 days agoMITView on GitHub

Use when processing a recorded human QA session (timeline of verbal remarks, screenshots, captured network errors) into tracker tickets - "process the QA session", "create the QA tickets", "traite la session QA", "crée les tickets QA", a QA bundle folder to triage.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

7 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈4

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 3

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    This skill: when: triaging a recorded QA session bundle (timeline, screenshots, network errors) into tickets

    line 16
  2. Very specific:

    bug-ticket-root-cause: if: a single observed bug outside a QA session, to document with its root cause

    line 17
  3. Very specific:

    validating-features-end-to-end: if: the goal is to prove a specific feature works, not to triage remarks

    line 18
  4. Very specific:

    Correlate before creating: read the timeline in chronological order.

    line 33
  5. Distinctive:

    Do not create a ticket without reconstructed reproduction steps - a ticket "401 error somewhere" is unclosable

    line 49
  6. Distinctive:

    No generic script (triage depends on the bundle format): if the repo has dedicated intake tooling, run it (see header note).

    line 73
  7. Distinctive:

    Follow the project bug skill's ticket template for the content of each ticket created.

    line 74

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

QA Session Intake - from a recorded QA session to tickets

If the current repo has dedicated intake tooling, it wins - run its script instead of triaging by hand.

This skill vs. others

  • This skill when: triaging a recorded QA session bundle (timeline, screenshots, network errors) into tickets
  • bug-ticket-root-cause if: a single observed bug outside a QA session, to document with its root cause
  • validating-features-end-to-end if: the goal is to prove a specific feature works, not to triage remarks

Principle

One ticket per distinct problem, not per event. A 40-minute session with 28 events and 45 network errors typically yields 5–10 tickets. 45 tickets = noise that buries the signal; 1 mega-ticket = untriageable.

Context to gather (before acting)

  • Inventory the bundle: timestamped timeline, screenshots (with timestamps), network-error log
  • Tracker + the repo's format/label/severity conventions (the project's bug skill if it exists) - do not invent
  • Existing open tickets, for de-duplication
  • Version/build under test and the functional areas the session covered

Triage

  1. Correlate before creating: read the timeline in chronological order; group network errors by (endpoint, status, message); attach each cluster to its time window and the tester's remarks; only look at screenshots that coincide with an event.
  2. Signal hierarchy:
    • Tester's verbal remark → always a ticket (most reliable signal), merge if same screen + same interaction
    • Repeated network cluster with no remark → a triage ticket if the impact is estimable (missing data, silent failure) - do not ignore it because "the tester didn't notice": a silently failing endpoint can hide data loss
    • Isolated network error with no visible impact → attach to an existing ticket or mark as ignored with a reason
  3. Content of each ticket: title from the user's point of view · steps reconstructed from the timeline (timestamps) · expected vs actual · closest screenshot attached · network requests from the ±5 s window if relevant · estimated severity.

Traceability (nothing is lost silently)

Deliver alongside the tickets:

  • Session summary: areas tested, breakdown by severity, areas not covered
  • Annotated trace: each network error marked → ticket #N | ignored: duplicate | ignored: no impact - verifiable by anyone
  • Unused screenshots listed with a reason

Guardrails

  • Do not create a ticket without reconstructed reproduction steps - a ticket "401 error somewhere" is unclosable
  • De-duplication: search open tickets before creating
  • Format/labels: follow the repo tracker's conventions (the project's bug skill if it exists)

Traps & rationalizations

ExcuseReality
"45 network errors → I create 45 tickets"One ticket per distinct problem, not per event. Correlate first; 5–10 tickets typical.
"Everything in one session mega-ticket"Untriageable and unclosable. One problem = one ticket.
"The tester said nothing, I ignore the network error"A silently failing endpoint can hide data loss. Triage if the impact is estimable.
"401 error somewhere, I create the ticket"Without steps reconstructed from the timeline, the ticket is unclosable.
"I create quickly, I check duplicates later"Search open tickets first - the duplicate pollutes the tracker.

Exit condition

  • One ticket per distinct problem, each with reconstructed steps, expected vs actual, closest screenshot, severity
  • Annotated trace: each network error marked ticket #N | ignored: <reason> - verifiable
  • Session summary delivered (areas tested, severity breakdown, areas not covered)
  • Unused screenshots listed with a reason
  • De-duplication done against open tickets

Tooling

  • No generic script (triage depends on the bundle format): if the repo has dedicated intake tooling, run it (see header note).
  • Follow the project bug skill's ticket template for the content of each ticket created.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.