qa
Skill246 starsChanged 46 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Interactive QA session where user reports bugs or issues conversationally, and the agent files GitHub issues. Explores the codebase in the background for context and domain language. Use when user wants to report bugs, do QA, file issues conversationally, or mentions "QA session".
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
10 rules. About 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈9
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 8
Run an interactive QA session.
- Distinctive: line 20
Do NOT over-interview. If the description is clear enough to file, move on.
- Distinctive: line 34
Before filing, decide whether this is a single issue or needs to be broken down into multiple issues.
- Distinctive: line 42
Keep as a single issue when:
- Very specific: line 49
Create issues with gh issue create.
- Distinctive: line 79
Create issues in dependency order (blockers first) so you can reference real issue numbers.
- Distinctive: line 81
Use this template for each sub-issue:
- Distinctive: line 111
When creating a breakdown:
- Distinctive: line 126
After filing, print all issue URLs (with blocking relationships summarized) and ask: "Next issue, or are we done?"
- Distinctive: line 130
Keep going until the user says they're done.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 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.
Files
QA Session
Run an interactive QA session. The user describes problems they're encountering. You clarify, explore the codebase for context, and file GitHub issues that are durable, user-focused, and use the project's domain language.
For each issue the user raises
1. Listen and lightly clarify
Let the user describe the problem in their own words. Ask at most 2-3 short clarifying questions focused on:
- What they expected vs what actually happened
- Steps to reproduce (if not obvious)
- Whether it's consistent or intermittent
Do NOT over-interview. If the description is clear enough to file, move on.
2. Explore the codebase in the background
While talking to the user, kick off an Agent (subagent_type=Explore) in the background to understand the relevant area. The goal is NOT to find a fix — it's to:
- Learn the domain language used in that area (check UBIQUITOUS_LANGUAGE.md)
- Understand what the feature is supposed to do
- Identify the user-facing behavior boundary
This context helps you write a better issue — but the issue itself should NOT reference specific files, line numbers, or internal implementation details.
3. Assess scope: single issue or breakdown?
Before filing, decide whether this is a single issue or needs to be broken down into multiple issues.
Break down when:
- The fix spans multiple independent areas (e.g. "the form validation is wrong AND the success message is missing AND the redirect is broken")
- There are clearly separable concerns that different people could work on in parallel
- The user describes something that has multiple distinct failure modes or symptoms
Keep as a single issue when:
- It's one behavior that's wrong in one place
- The symptoms are all caused by the same root behavior
4. File the GitHub issue(s)
Create issues with gh issue create. Do NOT ask the user to review first — just file and share URLs.
Issues must be durable — they should still make sense after major refactors. Write from the user's perspective.
For a single issue
Use this template:
## What happened
[Describe the actual behavior the user experienced, in plain language]
## What I expected
[Describe the expected behavior]
## Steps to reproduce
1. [Concrete, numbered steps a developer can follow]
2. [Use domain terms from the codebase, not internal module names]
3. [Include relevant inputs, flags, or configuration]
## Additional context
[Any extra observations from the user or from codebase exploration that help frame the issue — e.g. "this only happens when using the Docker layer, not the filesystem layer" — use domain language but don't cite files]For a breakdown (multiple issues)
Create issues in dependency order (blockers first) so you can reference real issue numbers.
Use this template for each sub-issue:
## Parent issue
#<parent-issue-number> (if you created a tracking issue) or "Reported during QA session"
## What's wrong
[Describe this specific behavior problem — just this slice, not the whole report]
## What I expected
[Expected behavior for this specific slice]
## Steps to reproduce
1. [Steps specific to THIS issue]
## Blocked by
- #<issue-number> (if this issue can't be fixed until another is resolved)
Or "None — can start immediately" if no blockers.
## Additional context
[Any extra observations relevant to this slice]When creating a breakdown:
- Prefer many thin issues over few thick ones — each should be independently fixable and verifiable
- Mark blocking relationships honestly — if issue B genuinely can't be tested until issue A is fixed, say so. If they're independent, mark both as "None — can start immediately"
- Create issues in dependency order so you can reference real issue numbers in "Blocked by"
- Maximize parallelism — the goal is that multiple people (or agents) can grab different issues simultaneously
Rules for all issue bodies
- No file paths or line numbers — these go stale
- Use the project's domain language (check UBIQUITOUS_LANGUAGE.md if it exists)
- Describe behaviors, not code — "the sync service fails to apply the patch" not "applyPatch() throws on line 42"
- Reproduction steps are mandatory — if you can't determine them, ask the user
- Keep it concise — a developer should be able to read the issue in 30 seconds
After filing, print all issue URLs (with blocking relationships summarized) and ask: "Next issue, or are we done?"
5. Continue the session
Keep going until the user says they're done. Each issue is independent — don't batch them.
Other versions34 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 34
- amazingloft999-droid/mattpocock-skills★ 422100% same
- loulanyue/skills★ 231100% same
- aurorasoft2/Matt_Pocock_Skills★ 133100% same
- VisualxIntelligence/mattpocok-skills★ 55100% same
- metrogg/AgentHub★ 19100% same
- GAGAA-HUE/ASHUO-claude-skills★ 5100% same
- amit-t/skills★ 4100% same
- Roentek/Claude_Code_Boilerplate_Framework★ 4100% same
- 47thtechcorner/RayCodes_Mattpocock_Skills★ 2100% same
- AaronAbuUsama/whatsappd★ 2100% same
24 more not listed
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository56 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- cavemanSkill
- design-an-interfaceSkill
- diagnoseSkill
- docouture-authoring-guidesSkill
- docouture-docs-internalsSkill
- docouture-docs-versioningSkill
- docouture-documenting-changesSkill
- docouture-getting-startedSkill
- docouture-writing-docs-pagesSkill
- edit-articleSkill
- git-guardrails-claude-codeSkill
- grill-meSkill
- grill-with-docsSkill
- handoffSkill
- improve-codebase-architectureSkill
- migrate-to-shoehornSkill
- openspec-apply-changeSkill
- openspec-archive-changeSkill
- openspec-exploreSkill
- openspec-proposeSkill
- openspec-sync-specsSkill
- openspec-update-changeSkill
- openspec-verify-changeSkill
- prototypeSkill
- request-refactor-planSkill
- reviewSkill
- scaffold-exercisesSkill
- setup-matt-pocock-skillsSkill
- setup-pre-commitSkill
- tddSkill
- teachSkill
- to-issuesSkill
- to-prdSkill
- triageSkill
- ubiquitous-languageSkill
- write-a-skillSkill
- writing-beatsSkill
- writing-fragmentsSkill
- writing-shapeSkill
- zoom-outSkill
- openspec-apply-changeSkill
- openspec-archive-changeSkill
- openspec-exploreSkill
- openspec-proposeSkill
- openspec-sync-specsSkill
- openspec-update-changeSkill
- openspec-verify-changeSkill
- openspec-apply-changeSkill
- openspec-archive-changeSkill
- openspec-exploreSkill
- openspec-proposeSkill
- openspec-sync-specsSkill
- openspec-update-changeSkill
- openspec-verify-changeSkill
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
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.

