team-qa

---
name: team-qa
description: "Orchestrate the QA team through a full testing cycle — qa-lead strategy and test plan, qa-tester case writing, execution, sign-off."
argument-hint: "[sprint | feature: system-name] [--review full|lean|solo]"
user-invocable: true
allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Write, Agent, AskUserQuestion, Bash(bash "*/.claude/skills/team-qa/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config *)
model: sonnet
---

When this skill is invoked, orchestrate the QA team through a structured testing cycle.

**Decision Points:** At each phase transition, use `AskUserQuestion` to present
the user with the subagent's proposals as selectable options. Write the agent's
full analysis in conversation, then capture the decision with concise labels.
In `collaborative` mode, the user must approve before moving to the next phase.
In `guided` mode the pipeline advances automatically unless a phase is BLOCKED;
in `autonomous` mode it runs end to end, recording each phase outcome via
`log_decision`. Decisions in `automation_always_ask` categories
(`is_always_ask_category` helper) always prompt regardless of mode. See
`.claude/docs/automation-modes.md`.

## Phase 0: Resolve Config

!`bash "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config --keys review_mode,automation,team.size`

Resolved above — use as-is; `--review` overrides `review_mode`. No block →
defaults in `.claude/docs/config-resolution.md`.

`review_mode` sets gate depth:
- `full` — spawn all director and lead gates as described
- `lean` — skip director gates unless they are PHASE-GATE type (CD-PHASE-GATE, TD-PHASE-GATE, PR-PHASE-GATE, AD-PHASE-GATE)
- `solo` — skip all director gate spawning entirely; run the skill without any agent gates

`automation` drives the Decision Points note above. See the Decision Points note above and
`.claude/docs/automation-modes.md` for how each mode changes pipeline behavior.

**`team.size`**: which agents are active (orthogonal to review_mode gate-depth and workflow docs).
- **`individual`** (default): `qa-tester` only; `qa-lead` invoked at phase gates only.
- **`small`**: `qa-lead` + `qa-tester` pipeline (as documented).
- **`studio`**: `qa-lead` + per-story `qa-tester` spawn + sign-off.
Directors (CD/TD/PR) still spawn at phase gates regardless of size; a non-core agent needed at `individual` routes through the nearest active core agent with an informational note. **"Phase gate" means any phase that ends in an `AskUserQuestion` decision point before the pipeline advances** — not every phase. Apply the test literally: if the phase below has no decision point, it is not a gate, and an agent restricted to "phase gates only" is not spawned for it. This active-set scoping applies throughout the pipeline below: any phase that names an agent outside the active set routes through the nearest core agent rather than spawning it.

**Announce the active set before Phase 1 — never let the collapse be silent.**
Before spawning anything, state in one line which agents this run will actually
spawn, and which the pipeline below names but will **not** spawn at the resolved
`team.size`. For example:

> `Active set (team.size: <resolved>): <the agents listed for that size above>.`
> `Not spawned this run: <every other agent this pipeline names> — consulted`
> `through <nearest active core agent>. Raise team.size (or modes.rigor) to widen.`

Fill it from the `team.size` list directly above and the agents this file's own
pipeline names — not from an example. Both sets differ per orchestrator.

The pipeline below reads as a multi-agent fan-out and at the shipped default it
is one or two agents — `team-release` names eight and runs one, `team-narrative`
names six across five phases and runs `writer` alone. **The collapse is correct**:
`team.size` is rigor-fronted and the narrow default is the token lever, measured
at roughly 10x. What was wrong is that nothing said so, so a reader could not
distinguish a correctly-collapsed run from a broken pipeline, and the per-agent
"routes through the nearest core agent with an informational note" rule above
fires at routing time and never states the shape of the run as a whole.

This is the same rule as the skipped-check reporting elsewhere in this file: **a constraint that is enforced but never surfaced is
indistinguishable, to the person reading the output, from one that was never
enforced.**

## Team Composition

- **qa-lead** — QA strategy, test plan generation, story classification, sign-off report
- **qa-tester** — Test case writing, bug report writing, manual QA documentation

## How to Delegate

Use the `Agent` tool to spawn each team member as a subagent:
- `subagent_type: qa-lead` — Strategy, planning, classification, sign-off
- `subagent_type: qa-tester` — Test case writing and bug report writing

**Brief each agent — do not dump context.** Read the shared inputs **once** and pass a distilled brief inline: the lines each agent actually needs, never a file path for a document you have already read (an agent handed a path re-reads the whole file). Pass a path only for a document you have not read and only that agent needs.

**End every agent prompt with a return contract:** "Write your full output to `[path]` — that named path is your write authorisation under the bounded exception below, so write it without a separate approval prompt. Return **only** (1) the path written, (2) a ≤5-bullet summary of decisions, (3) any BLOCKED/CONCERNS items, one line each. Do not restate the documents you read." Without it, an agent returns everything it read back into this session.

> **Why this does not violate the Collaboration Protocol.** `CLAUDE.md` requires an agent to ask "May I write this to [filepath]?" before Write/Edit. A subagent spawned here writes **without** asking, and that is a deliberate, bounded exception rather than an oversight — the same call already made for `consistency-check` appending to `active.md`. The exception holds only when all three are true: (1) the path is one **you** named in the prompt, so the user approved the destination when they approved the phase; (2) it is a new artifact under `production/`, `docs/` or `tests/`, never an edit to existing source or config; (3) the phase that produced it is itself gated by an `AskUserQuestion` before the pipeline advances. Outside those three, the agent must ask. **Do not "fix" this by asking per subagent** — a prompt per agent per phase makes an orchestrator unusable, which is why the exception exists.

Launch independent qa-tester tasks in parallel where possible (e.g., multiple stories in Phase 5 can be scaffolded simultaneously).

## Pipeline

### Phase 1: Load Context

Before doing anything else, gather the full scope:

1. Detect the current sprint or feature scope from the argument:
   - If argument is a sprint identifier (e.g., `sprint-03`): Glob `production/sprints/` for files matching `*[sprint-identifier]*.md`. Read the matched file. If multiple match, use the most recently modified.
   - If argument is `feature: [system-name]`: glob story files tagged for that system
   - If no argument: read `production/session-state/active.md` and `production/sprint-status.yaml` (if present) to infer the active sprint

2. Read `project.stage` from `project.yaml` (fallback `production/stage.txt`) to confirm the current project phase.

3. Count stories found and report to the user:
   > "QA cycle starting for [sprint/feature]. Found [N] stories. Current stage: [stage]. Ready to begin QA strategy?"

### Phase 2: QA Strategy (qa-lead)

Spawn `qa-lead` via `Agent` to review all in-scope stories and produce a QA strategy.

Prompt the qa-lead to:
- Read each story file
- Classify each story by type: **Logic** / **Integration** / **Visual/Feel** / **UI** / **Config/Data**
- Identify which stories require automated test evidence vs. manual QA
- Flag any stories with missing acceptance criteria or missing test evidence that would block QA
- Estimate manual QA effort (number of test sessions needed)
- **Before assessing smoke status, check for an existing smoke check report**: Glob `production/qa/smoke-*.md` and read the most recently modified file (if found). If a report exists, use its verdict and findings directly — do not re-interview the user. If no report exists, note: "No prior smoke check report found — run `/smoke-check sprint` before proceeding." and set smoke check status to UNKNOWN (treat as PASS WITH WARNINGS for the purpose of continuing). Produce a smoke check verdict: **PASS** / **PASS WITH WARNINGS [list]** / **FAIL [list of failures]** / **UNKNOWN (no report found)**
- Produce a strategy summary table and smoke check result:

  | Story | Type | Automated Required | Manual Required | Blocker? |
  |-------|------|--------------------|-----------------|----------|

  **Smoke Check**: [PASS / PASS WITH WARNINGS / FAIL / UNKNOWN] — [source: `production/qa/smoke-[date].md` or "no report found"] — [details if not PASS]

If the smoke check result is **FAIL**, the qa-lead must list the failures prominently. QA cannot proceed past the strategy phase with a failed smoke check.

Present the qa-lead's full strategy to the user, then use `AskUserQuestion`:

```
question: "QA Strategy Review"
options:
  - "Looks good — proceed to test plan"
  - "Adjust story types before proceeding"
  - "Skip blocked stories and proceed with the rest"
  - "Smoke check failed — fix issues and re-run /team-qa"
  - "Cancel — resolve blockers first"
```

If smoke check **FAIL**: do not proceed to Phase 3. Surface the failures from the smoke check report and stop. The user must fix them, re-run `/smoke-check sprint`, and then re-run `/team-qa`.
If smoke check **UNKNOWN**: surface a warning — "No smoke check report found. Recommend running `/smoke-check sprint` before QA. Proceeding with caution."
If smoke check **PASS WITH WARNINGS**: note the warnings for the sign-off report and continue.
If blockers are present: list them explicitly. The user may choose to skip blocked stories or cancel the cycle.

### Phase 3: Test Plan Generation

Using the strategy from Phase 2, produce a structured test plan document.

The test plan should cover:
- **Scope**: sprint/feature name, story count, dates
- **Story Classification Table**: from Phase 2 strategy
- **Automated Test Requirements**: which stories need test files, expected paths in `tests/`
- **Manual QA Scope**: which stories need manual walkthrough and what to validate
- **Out of Scope**: what is explicitly not being tested this cycle and why
- **Entry Criteria**: what must be true before QA can begin. Always include: (1) Smoke check PASS or PASS WITH WARNINGS report exists at `production/qa/smoke-*.md`, (2) build is stable (no crashes on launch), (3) all Must Have stories have Status: in-progress or done in `production/sprint-status.yaml`. Add any sprint-specific criteria beyond these.
- **Exit Criteria**: what constitutes a completed QA cycle (all stories PASS or FAIL with bugs filed)

Ask: "May I write the QA plan to `production/qa/qa-plan-[sprint]-[date].md`?"

Write only after receiving approval.

### Phase 4: Test Case Writing (qa-tester)

> **Smoke check** is performed as part of Phase 2 (QA Strategy). If the smoke check returned FAIL in Phase 2, the cycle was stopped there. This phase only runs when the Phase 2 smoke check was PASS, PASS WITH WARNINGS, or UNKNOWN.

For each story requiring manual QA (Visual/Feel, UI, Integration without automated tests):

Spawn `qa-tester` via `Agent` for each story (run in parallel where possible), providing:
- The story file path
- The relevant section of the QA plan for that story
- The GDD acceptance criteria for the system being tested (if available)
- Instructions to write detailed test cases covering all acceptance criteria
- **The output path: `production/qa/test-cases/[story-slug]-cases.md`.** Name it
  explicitly in the prompt, one per story.

> **Why the path is stated here rather than left to the orchestrator.** The
> bounded write exception above holds only when "the path is one **you** named in
> the prompt". This is the phase that spawns agents *in parallel*, so it is where
> an unnamed destination does the most damage: each agent improvises its own, and
> two runs file the same artifact in two places. The phase reads correctly right
> up until two agents need somewhere to put their output.

Each test case set should include:
- **Preconditions**: game state required before testing begins
- **Steps**: numbered, unambiguous actions
- **Expected Result**: what should happen
- **Actual Result**: field left blank for the tester to fill in
- **Pass/Fail**: field left blank

Present the test cases to the user for review before execution. Group by story.

Use `AskUserQuestion` per story group (batched 3-4 at a time):

```
question: "Test cases ready for [Story Group]. Review before manual QA begins?"
options:
  - "Approved — begin manual QA for these stories"
  - "Revise test cases for [story name]"
  - "Skip manual QA for [story name] — not ready"
```

### Phase 5: Manual QA Execution

Walk through each story in the approved manual QA list.

Batch stories into groups of 3-4 and use `AskUserQuestion` for each:

```
question: "Manual QA — [Story Title]\n[brief description of what to test]"
options:
  - "PASS — all acceptance criteria verified"
  - "PASS WITH NOTES — minor issues found (describe after)"
  - "FAIL — criteria not met (describe after)"
  - "BLOCKED — cannot test yet (reason)"
```

After each FAIL result: use `AskUserQuestion` to collect the failure description, then spawn `qa-tester` via `Agent` to write a formal bug report in `production/qa/bugs/`.

**After each PASS or PASS WITH NOTES on a Visual/Feel or UI story, write the
evidence artifact** to `production/qa/evidence/[story-slug]-evidence.md`, from
`.claude/docs/templates/test-evidence.md`, carrying the sign-off table intact.
Save the screenshot you took while testing into the same directory and reference
it from the doc — `/story-done` checks for a retained image, not just the
write-up.

> **This is not optional bookkeeping — it is the artifact the next skill gates
> on.** `/story-done` globs `production/qa/evidence/` for Visual/Feel and UI
> stories and reads the sign-off table; `/story-readiness`,
> `/test-evidence-review` and `gate-release` read the same directory. Write
> anywhere else and a story can pass a full manual QA cycle here, then be told by
> `/story-done` that no visual evidence exists. Visual/Feel and UI gates are
> **BLOCKING by default**, so that is a deadlock — QA passed, story cannot
> close. It is a merely confusing flag only where `testing.strict.ui` or
> `.visual` has been explicitly set to `false`.
>
> Leave the sign-off rows **unchecked** unless the sign-off actually happened in
> this session. An evidence file with pre-ticked approvals is worse than none: it
> converts a missing signature into a recorded one.

Bug report naming: `BUG-[NNN]-[short-slug].md` (increment NNN from existing bugs in the directory).

After collecting all results, summarize:
- Stories PASS: [count]
- Stories PASS WITH NOTES: [count]
- Stories FAIL: [count] — bugs filed: [IDs]
- Stories BLOCKED: [count]

### Phase 6: QA Sign-Off Report

Spawn `qa-lead` via `Agent` to produce the sign-off report using all results from Phases 4–6.

The sign-off report format:

```markdown
## QA Sign-Off Report: [Sprint/Feature]
**Date**: [date]

### Test Coverage Summary
| Story | Type | Auto Test | Manual QA | Result |
|-------|------|-----------|-----------|--------|
| [title] | Logic | PASS | — | PASS |
| [title] | Visual | — | PASS | PASS |

### Bugs Found
| ID | Story | Severity | Status |
|----|-------|----------|--------|
| BUG-001 | [story] | S2 | Open |

### Verdict: NOT ASSESSED / APPROVED / APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS / NOT APPROVED

**Conditions** (if any): [list what must be fixed before the build advances]

### Next Step
[guidance based on verdict]
```

Verdict rules:

**Precondition, checked first.** APPROVED and APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS both
require that **every story in scope produced executed evidence** — a test that
ran, or a manual case that was walked. If any story is BLOCKED, unexecuted, or
has no evidence, the verdict is **NOT ASSESSED** and the other three rules are
not evaluated.

- **NOT ASSESSED — NO EVIDENCE**: One or more stories produced no executed
  evidence (BLOCKED, tests not written, cases not walked, or smoke check FAIL /
  UNKNOWN). This is **not** a pass and **not** a fail; it means QA did not
  happen. Say which stories and why.
- **APPROVED**: All stories PASS or PASS WITH NOTES; no S1/S2 bugs open
- **APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS**: S3/S4 bugs open, or PASS WITH NOTES issues documented; no S1/S2 bugs
- **NOT APPROVED**: Any S1/S2 bugs open; or stories FAIL without documented workaround

> **Why the precondition exists.** The three rules below it assume
> every story resolves to PASS or FAIL. A sprint where nothing was executed
> trips none of the NOT APPROVED conditions and **vacuously satisfies "no S1/S2
> bugs open"** — because zero executed tests means zero observed failures. Read
> literally, and without this precondition, the rules let a completely untested
> build reach APPROVED — a `qa-lead` reaching NOT APPROVED on intent would find
> the letter of the rules did not support it. A
> sign-off asserts verified quality; without this precondition the rules cannot
> tell "verified good" from "never looked".

Next step guidance by verdict:
- NOT ASSESSED: "QA did not run to completion. Produce the missing evidence — write the Logic tests, walk the manual cases, run `/smoke-check` — then re-run `/team-qa`. Do not advance the build on this verdict."
- APPROVED: "Build is ready for the next phase. Run `/gate-check` to validate advancement."
- APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS: "Resolve conditions before advancing. S3/S4 bugs may be deferred to polish."
- NOT APPROVED: "Resolve S1/S2 bugs and re-run `/team-qa` or targeted manual QA before advancing."

Ask: "May I write this QA sign-off report to `production/qa/qa-signoff-[sprint]-[date].md`?"

Write only after receiving approval.

## Error Recovery Protocol

**First, verify the artifact.** If the return contract named a path, check the
path exists before treating the phase as done — **a named artifact that is not
on disk is a failed phase, however fluent the response reads.** An agent can
burn a full phase and return a plausible preamble having written nothing, which
is neither BLOCKED nor an error nor "cannot complete", so the trigger below
never fires. Resume it naming the unmet contract; the context is
usually still there.

If any spawned agent returns BLOCKED, errors, or cannot complete: **surface it
immediately, don't proceed past a dependency it blocks, and always produce a
partial report.** Full procedure: `.claude/docs/error-recovery-protocol.md`.

Common blockers:
- Input file missing (story not found, GDD absent) → redirect to the skill that creates it
- ADR status is Proposed → do not implement; run `/architecture-decision` first
- Scope too large → split into two stories via `/create-stories`
- Conflicting instructions between ADR and story → surface the conflict, do not guess

## Output

A summary covering: stories in scope, smoke check result, manual QA results, bugs filed (with IDs and severities), and the final APPROVED / APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS / NOT APPROVED verdict.

Verdict: **COMPLETE** — QA cycle finished.
Verdict: **BLOCKED** — smoke check failed or critical blocker prevented cycle completion; partial report produced.

## Session State Update

After the final phase completes (sign-off report written or BLOCKED verdict reached), silently append to `production/session-state/active.md`:

```
<!-- QA RUN: [date] | Sprint: [sprint identifier or "ad-hoc"] | Verdict: [PASS/FAIL/CONCERNS] | Report: production/qa/qa-[date].md -->
```