acceptance-qa
Skill0 starsChanged 24 days agoMITView on GitHub
Check user-visible behavior against acceptance criteria using an available local app, staging system, API, or CLI. Prefer read-only smoke tests; never mutate production or external data without authorization.
In this repository16 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- architecture-reviewSkill
- bug-fix-verificationSkill
- dependency-upgradeSkill
- docs-syncSkill
- idea-to-scopeSkill
- implementation-planSkill
- independent-reviewSkill
- migration-safetySkill
- performance-investigationSkill
- pull-request-handoffSkill
- release-checkpointSkill
- root-cause-investigationSkill
- security-reviewSkill
- surgical-changeSkill
- test-gap-auditSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 13
Use disposable accounts and test data where possible.
≈ “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.
Files
Acceptance QA
Tests can pass while the workflow is broken. Exercise the behavior as a user would, with evidence from the environment actually available.
- Confirm the build/version, target URL or local process, environment, credentials policy, and acceptance criteria. If the target is unclear, do not guess a production endpoint.
- Map the shortest happy path, one meaningful failure path, and a recovery or retry path when applicable. Prefer high-signal cases to broad click tours.
- Select available tools: browser automation, HTTP client, CLI, or a manual checklist. Do not claim a browser test was performed if no browser is available.
- Use disposable accounts and test data where possible. Navigation and observation are safe defaults; writes, emails, payments, account creation, destructive actions, and production interactions require appropriate authorization.
- For each case record action, expected outcome, observed result, environment, and evidence (log, response, screenshot, or exact output when available).
- Classify failures as reproduced defects, environment blockers, or unverified assumptions. Do not silently repair during QA; hand off reproducible findings to
$bug-fix-verification.
Output
A short pass/fail/not-run matrix, build identity, environment, findings with reproduction steps, and untested paths. A local pass is not production validation.
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.

