defect-lifecycle-manager
Skill5 starsChanged 9 months agoMITView on GitHub
Manage the complete defect lifecycle from discovery through closure, including logging, tracking, metrics analysis, root cause analysis, and stakeholder reporting.
In this repository10 other files it gives its agents.
- browser-useSkill
- cicd-testing-integrationSkill
- find-skillsSkill
- multi-agent-orchestrationSkill
- qa-process-improvementSkill
- skill-creatorSkill
- test-design-istqbSkill
- test-execution-managerSkill
- user-story-static-verifierSkill
- senior-qa-engineerSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
12 rules. About 0 are common, 12 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈12
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 12
Use this skill when you need to:
- Distinctive: line 199
Test cases missing scenarios
- Distinctive: line 212
Update Requirements: Add missing acceptance criteria
- Distinctive: line 214
Improve Code Reviews: Add checklists for common issues
- Distinctive: line 215
Automate Detection: Create automated tests
- Distinctive: line 217
Process Improvements: Update development practices
- Distinctive: line 221
When defect is marked RESOLVED:
- Distinctive: line 226
Verify Original Issue: Run original reproduction steps
- Distinctive: line 227
Test Related Areas: Check for unintended side effects
- Distinctive: line 228
Regression Test: Ensure fix doesn't break other features
- Distinctive: line 229
Edge Cases: Test variations of original scenario
- Distinctive: line 230
Document Result: Update defect with verification notes
≈ “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
Defect Lifecycle Manager
Expert skill for managing defects throughout their lifecycle and tracking quality metrics.
When to Use
Use this skill when you need to:
- Log new defects with complete information
- Track defect status and lifecycle
- Analyze defect trends and metrics
- Conduct root cause analysis
- Report quality status to stakeholders
- Verify defect fixes
- Prevent defect recurrence
Defect Lifecycle States
NEW → ASSIGNED → IN PROGRESS → RESOLVED → VERIFIED → CLOSED
↓
REOPENED (if verification fails)State Definitions
NEW: Just logged, awaiting triage ASSIGNED: Assigned to developer IN PROGRESS: Developer actively working RESOLVED: Fix completed, ready for verification VERIFIED: QA confirmed fix works CLOSED: Accepted and archived REOPENED: Fix didn't work, back to dev
Defect Logging Standards
Complete Defect Report
Defect ID: [Auto-generated or manual]
Title: [Action] + [Component] + [Unexpected Behavior]
Example: "Login button does not respond on mobile Chrome"
Type: [Functional/UI/Performance/Security/Data/Integration]
Severity: [Critical/High/Medium/Low]
Priority: [P0/P1/P2/P3]
Reported By: [Name]
Date Reported: [Date]
Detected In: [Environment]
Build/Version: [x.y.z]
Environment Details:
- OS: [Platform + version]
- Browser/Device: [Details]
- Network: [WiFi/Mobile/etc]
Preconditions:
[System state before reproduction]
Steps to Reproduce:
1. [Exact action]
2. [Exact action]
3. [Exact action]
Expected Result:
[What should happen per requirements]
Actual Result:
[What actually happened]
Reproducibility: [Always / Intermittent (X out of Y attempts)]
Impact:
[Who is affected? How many users? What's blocked?]
Attachments:
- Screenshot: [filename]
- Error log: [filename]
- Video: [filename]
- Network trace: [filename]
Additional Context:
- Related defects: [Links]
- Related requirements: [Links]
- Workaround: [If available]Defect Triage Process
Step 1: Validate
- Can you reproduce it?
- Is it a duplicate?
- Is it really a defect or expected behavior?
Step 2: Categorize
- Determine type and root cause area
- Assign to correct component/team
Step 3: Assess Impact
- Severity (technical impact)
- Priority (business impact + timing)
- Customer impact
Step 4: Assign & Schedule
- Route to appropriate developer
- Set target fix version
- Establish timeline
Defect Metrics & Analysis
Key Metrics
Defect Density
Defects per 1000 lines of code
or
Defects per feature/moduleDefect Detection Rate
(Defects found in QA) / (Total defects found)
Goal: 90%+ caught before productionDefect Age
Days from New → Closed
Track: Average, Median, MaxFix Time
Days from Assigned → Resolved
By severity levelReopen Rate
(Reopened defects) / (Total resolved)
Goal: < 10%Defect Escape Rate
(Production defects) / (Total defects)
Goal: < 5%Trend Analysis
Monitor weekly/monthly:
- Defect discovery rate (increasing/decreasing?)
- Open vs closed trend (gap closing or widening?)
- Severity distribution (more critical over time?)
- Component hot spots (which areas have most defects?)
- Root cause patterns (similar issues repeating?)
Root Cause Analysis
5 Whys Technique
Problem: Users unable to login
Why? → Authentication service returned error 500
Why? → Database connection timed out
Why? → Connection pool exhausted
Why? → Pool size set too low for expected load
Why? → Configuration not updated after scaling users
Root Cause: Incorrect configuration management
Prevention: Add load testing + auto-scaling configsCommon Root Causes
- Requirements Issues
- Missing information
- Ambiguous specifications
- Changing requirements
- Design Issues
- Incorrect architecture
- Missing edge case handling
- Performance not considered
- Implementation Issues
- Coding errors
- Logic mistakes
- Missing validation
- Testing Gaps
- Test cases missing scenarios
- Insufficient coverage
- Environment differences
- Environmental Issues
- Configuration problems
- Deployment errors
- Integration failures
Defect Prevention
Based on root cause analysis:
- Update Requirements: Add missing acceptance criteria
- Enhance Test Cases: Cover discovered edge cases
- Improve Code Reviews: Add checklists for common issues
- Automate Detection: Create automated tests
- Team Training: Share lessons learned
- Process Improvements: Update development practices
Defect Verification
When defect is marked RESOLVED:
Verification Steps
- Review Fix: Understand what was changed
- Verify Original Issue: Run original reproduction steps
- Test Related Areas: Check for unintended side effects
- Regression Test: Ensure fix doesn't break other features
- Edge Cases: Test variations of original scenario
- Document Result: Update defect with verification notes
Verification Outcomes
- ✓ VERIFIED: Fix works, no side effects → CLOSED
- ✗ REOPENED: Issue still occurs or new issues introduced
- ⚠️ PARTIAL: Fixed but with new concerns → Discuss with dev
Defect Status Reports
Daily Standup Update
Yesterday: Fixed 5 defects, found 3 new
Today: Will verify 8 fixes, test new feature
Blockers: 2 critical defects blocking releaseWeekly Status Report
Week: [Date range]
Defect Summary:
- Opened: 45
- Closed: 38
- Net Change: +7
Open Defects: 67 total
- Critical: 2
- High: 12
- Medium: 35
- Low: 18
Top Risks:
1. [Critical defect description + impact]
2. [High priority issue + timeline]
Trends:
- Defect rate decreasing (good)
- Backlog growing (concerning)
- Most defects in payment module (focus area)Release Readiness Report
Release: v2.3.0
Date: [Target date]
Status: [GREEN / YELLOW / RED]
Defect Gate Criteria:
✓ Critical defects: 0 (Goal: 0)
✓ High defects: 2 (Goal: ≤3)
✗ P0/P1 open: 1 (Goal: 0) ← BLOCKER
Recommendation: [Go / No-Go / Conditional Go]
Conditions for Go:
1. [Must fix BUG-XXX by date]
2. [Must complete regression testing]Best Practices
- ✓ Log defects immediately, don't batch
- ✓ Be specific and factual, not subjective
- ✓ Include all reproduction steps
- ✓ Attach evidence (screenshots, logs)
- ✓ Follow up on assigned defects
- ✓ Verify fixes thoroughly
- ✓ Close defects promptly
- ✓ Analyze patterns for prevention
- ✓ Communicate risks early
- ✓ Keep stakeholders informed
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.

