qa-plan
Skill40 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub
Generate a QA test plan for a sprint or feature. Reads PRDs and stories, classifies stories by test type (Logic/Integration/Visual/UI/Config), and produces a plan covering automated tests, manual cases, smoke scope, device matrix, and sign-off rules. Run before sprint kickoff or when starting a major feature.
22 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- striderZA/OpenCodeGameStudiostheir own version, first seen Nov 4, 2026
- Myriambs/argus-qatheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- matthull/my-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- RafaelFerSilva/refinement-agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studiostheir own version, first seen Oct 19, 2026
- venus2099/codex-game-studiostheir own version, first seen Oct 17, 2026
Other versions22 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 22
- Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios★ 27ksame name
- striderZA/OpenCodeGameStudios★ 118same name
- dawn840705/codex-code-studios★ 17same name
- lilangMax/ClaudeCodeGameStudios★ 8same name
- hongyuanc/codex-game-studios★ 5same name
- BenjaminG/ai-skills★ 4same name
- gonimar/claude-web-studio★ 4same name
- limoaCatherine/game-studio-harness★ 4same name
- RafaelFerSilva/refinement-agent-skills★ 2same name
- uppadhyayraj/dq-awesomeqa★ 2same name
12 more not listed
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 repository77 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- design/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- docs/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- src/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- tests/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- adoptSkill
- architecture-decisionSkill
- architecture-reviewSkill
- asset-auditSkill
- asset-specSkill
- balance-checkSkill
- brainstormSkill
- bug-reportSkill
- bug-triageSkill
- changelogSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- consistency-checkSkill
- content-auditSkill
- create-architectureSkill
- create-control-manifestSkill
- create-epicsSkill
- create-storiesSkill
- day-one-patchSkill
- design-bibleSkill
- design-reviewSkill
- design-systemSkill
- dev-storySkill
- estimateSkill
- extractSkill
- gate-checkSkill
- helpSkill
- hotfixSkill
- launch-checklistSkill
- localizeSkill
- map-systemsSkill
- milestone-reviewSkill
- onboardSkill
- patch-notesSkill
- perf-profileSkill
- prd-reviewSkill
- project-stage-detectSkill
- propagate-design-changeSkill
- prototypeSkill
- quick-designSkill
- regression-suiteSkill
- release-checklistSkill
- retrospectiveSkill
- reverse-documentSkill
- review-all-prdsSkill
- scope-checkSkill
- security-auditSkill
- setup-frameworkSkill
- skill-improveSkill
- skill-testSkill
- smoke-checkSkill
- soak-testSkill
- sprint-planSkill
- sprint-statusSkill
- startSkill
- story-doneSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 6 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 20 edited versions we read keep these.
3
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
6
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 26
No argument -> read production/session-state/active.md for the current sprint, or ask the user.
- Distinctive: line 29
Read each story file fully — title, ID, layer, type, acceptance criteria, dependencies.
- Very specific: line 32
Read related PRDs from design/prd/ to understand the feature context.
- Very specific: line 81
Read .claude/docs/technical-preferences.md for Target Platforms.
- Distinctive: line 112
Add any sprint-specific smoke flows (e.g., "new paywall opens and purchase test card succeeds").
- Distinctive: line 183
Ask before each write:
- Very specific: line 185
Write the plan to production/qa/qa-plan-[sprint]-[date].md.
- Very specific: line 225
Run /test-evidence-review mid-sprint to verify evidence is materializing.
- Very specific: line 226
Run /team-qa sprint-NN at sprint end to execute the cycle.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 20 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
QA Plan
The contract that says: for this scope, here is what will be tested, how, on which devices, and what defines done. Authored once at sprint start and referenced by every QA action that follows.
Phase 1: Resolve the Scope
Parse the argument:
sprint-NN-> readproduction/sprints/sprint-NN/and every story inside.feature: <name>-> glob stories tagged for that feature/system.- No argument -> read
production/session-state/active.mdfor the current sprint, or ask the user.
Read each story file fully — title, ID, layer, type, acceptance criteria, dependencies.
Read related PRDs from design/prd/ to understand the feature context.
Confirm scope and story count with the user.
Phase 2: Classify Each Story
For every story, assign a Test Type:
- Logic — pure functions, formulas, state machines, validation, pricing math.
- Integration — multi-module flows (e.g., sign-up triggers email triggers analytics event).
- Visual/Feel — animation, motion, haptics, transitions.
- UI — screens, navigation, forms, lists.
- Config/Data — pricing, feature flags, remote config, copy.
The default mapping when ambiguous:
- Story touches a screen file -> UI.
- Story touches an animation/motion module -> Visual/Feel.
- Story changes pricing/copy/flags only -> Config/Data.
- Story implements a calculation or validator -> Logic.
- Story crosses two modules with side effects -> Integration.
Surface ambiguous classifications via AskUserQuestion before continuing.
Phase 3: Determine Required Evidence
Per Type, the evidence requirement:
| Type | Required evidence | Location |
| Logic | Unit test, must pass in CI | tests/unit/[module]/ |
| Integration | Integration test or documented manual flow | tests/integration/[module]/ |
| Visual/Feel | Screenshot or screen recording + lead sign-off | production/qa/evidence/ |
| UI | Walkthrough doc OR Detox/Maestro/XCUITest/Espresso flow | production/qa/evidence/ or tests/e2e/ |
| Config/Data | Smoke check pass | production/qa/smoke-[date].md |
For each story, write its required Test Evidence path back into the story
file under Test Evidence:. Ask before each edit.
Phase 4: Define the Device Matrix
Read .claude/docs/technical-preferences.md for Target Platforms. Propose
a tiered device matrix via AskUserQuestion:
- Tier A — must pass before any release (representative low-end + high-end per platform).
- Tier B — covered weekly during the sprint.
- Tier C — covered before milestone gates only.
Defaults if not configured:
- iOS Tier A: latest iPhone, an iPhone two generations old, latest iPad.
- iOS Tier B: an iPhone SE-class small screen, last iOS minor version.
- Android Tier A: a flagship Pixel, a representative mid-range, the oldest supported Android version.
- Android Tier B: a low-RAM device, a tablet.
Capture the matrix in the plan.
Phase 5: Smoke Scope
List the critical paths that the smoke check must cover. Default seeds:
- Cold start within budget.
- Sign-in or guest entry succeeds.
- Primary CTA on home reaches its destination without crashing.
- Sign-out succeeds.
- Push notification received in foreground does not crash.
- Deep link from a known URL opens the right screen.
Add any sprint-specific smoke flows (e.g., "new paywall opens and purchase test card succeeds").
Phase 6: Manual QA Sessions
Estimate effort per Visual/Feel and UI story. Default 30 minutes per UI story, 45 minutes per Visual/Feel story, plus 1 hour for cross-device parity.
Render an Effort table:
| Story | Type | Effort | Tester | Devices |
Surface total manual hours and ask the user whether the sprint has the capacity.
Phase 7: Compose the Plan Document
# QA Plan — [Sprint / Feature]
Author: qa-lead
Date: [date]
Scope: [N] stories
Status: Proposed
## Story Classification
| Story | Type | Evidence Path |
## Automated Test Requirements
- Logic stories needing unit tests: [list]
- Integration stories needing integration tests: [list]
## Manual QA Scope
| Story | Devices | Steps overview | Effort |
## Smoke Scope
[bulleted critical paths]
## Device Matrix
- Tier A: [list]
- Tier B: [list]
- Tier C: [list]
## Out of Scope
[explicit list — what is NOT being tested this cycle and why]
## Entry Criteria
- Smoke check PASS
- All Logic story tests are green in CI
- Build is signed and installable on Tier A devices
## Exit Criteria
- All in-scope stories closed (PASS or FAIL with bug filed)
- No S1 or S2 bugs open
- Test evidence in place per the table above
## Sign-Off
- QA Lead: [name]
- Producer: [name]Phase 8: Save and Update Stories
Ask before each write:
- Write the plan to
production/qa/qa-plan-[sprint]-[date].md. - For each story, edit the
Test Evidence:field to match the table.
Append to production/session-state/active.md:
## QA Plan Created — [date]
- Plan: [path]
- Stories in scope: [N]
- Smoke scope: [N flows]
- Device matrix: [Tier A counts]Quality Gates / PASS-FAIL
- PASS — every story has a Type, required evidence path, and an estimated effort. Smoke scope and device matrix are non-empty.
- FAIL — any story is unclassified or missing an evidence path. Resolve before proceeding.
Examples
Example 1 — Sprint 4 plan: Scopes 11 stories. Classifies 5 Logic, 3 Integration, 2 UI, 1 Config. Surface 1 ambiguous story to user, who reclassifies it Integration. Writes plan, updates 11 stories. Total manual hours: 6.5.
Example 2 — Feature plan for "Push Notifications": Scopes 4 stories. 2 Integration (server push -> device delivery), 1 UI (notification settings screen), 1 Config (Firebase project ID swap). Smoke flow added for foreground/background delivery.
Next Steps
- Run
/test-evidence-reviewmid-sprint to verify evidence is materializing. - Run
/team-qa sprint-NNat sprint end to execute the cycle.
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.

