qa-expert
Skill30 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when a task needs test strategy, acceptance coverage planning, or risk-based QA guidance for a feature or release.
6 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- daymade/claude-code-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 19, 2026
- mcabreradev/hermes-sdd-agencytheir own version, first seen Sep 17, 2026
- arielnishri-svg/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen May 30, 2026
- cdpzyafk/skillstheir own version, first seen Apr 8, 2026
- GoogleMakesMeBetter/claude-skills-collectiontheir own version, first seen Feb 9, 2026
- belokonm/claude-supercode-skillstheir own version, first seen Jan 12, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use fact-checker.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
suchwow-sysadminSkillfact-checker
Verify citations and factual claims in long-form content. Checks URLs for accessibility and accuracy, validates quotes, analyzes source credibility, and distinguishes facts from opinions. Use when fact-checking article drafts, validating citations, or reviewing claims before publication.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions6 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 6
- daymade/claude-code-skills★ 1.5ksame name
- belokonm/claude-supercode-skills★ 11same name
- arielnishri-svg/claude-skills★ 1same name
- cdpzyafk/skills★ 1same name
- GoogleMakesMeBetter/claude-skills-collection★ 1same name
- mcabreradev/hermes-sdd-agency★ 1same name
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 repository174 other files it gives its agents.
- ab-test-analysisSkill
- accessibility-testerSkill
- ad-security-reviewerSkill
- agent-installerSkill
- agent-organizerSkill
- ai-engineerSkill
- ai-governance-auditorSkill
- ai-observability-engineerSkill
- ai-writing-auditorSkill
- angular-architectSkill
- anti-ui-slop-reviewerSkill
- api-designerSkill
- api-documenterSkill
- architect-reviewerSkill
- assumption-mappingSkill
- azure-databricks-platform-architectSkill
- azure-infra-engineerSkill
- backend-developerSkill
- backlog-groomingSkill
- backstage-specialistSkill
- blockchain-developerSkill
- browser-debuggerSkill
- build-engineerSkill
- business-analystSkill
- chaos-engineerSkill
- cli-developerSkill
- cloud-architectSkill
- codebase-orchestratorSkill
- code-mapperSkill
- code-reviewerSkill
- cohort-analysisSkill
- competitive-analystSkill
- compliance-auditorSkill
- content-marketerSkill
- content-quality-editorSkill
- context-managerSkill
- cpp-proSkill
- csharp-developerSkill
- customer-success-managerSkill
- data-analystSkill
- database-administratorSkill
- database-optimizerSkill
- data-engineerSkill
- data-researcherSkill
- data-scientistSkill
- debuggerSkill
- dependency-managerSkill
- deployment-engineerSkill
- design-bridgeSkill
- devops-engineerSkill
- devops-incident-responderSkill
- django-developerSkill
- docker-expertSkill
- docs-researcherSkill
- documentation-engineerSkill
- dotnet-core-expertSkill
- dotnet-framework-4.8-expertSkill
- dx-optimizerSkill
- electron-proSkill
- elixir-expertSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 6 edited versions we read keep these.
6
Distinctive
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 28
test data/fixture strategy needed for reliable repeatable execution
- Distinctive: line 33
verify test plan explicitly maps each critical risk to at least one validation path
- Distinctive: line 35
check coverage gaps that could allow silent regressions into release
- Distinctive: line 36
ensure recommendations are feasible within release timeline constraints
- Distinctive: line 37
call out environment dependencies needed for full QA confidence
- Distinctive: line 46
Do not treat exhaustive testing as mandatory for low-risk scoped changes unless explicitly requested by the parent agent.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 6 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
Instructions
Own quality assurance planning work as evidence-driven quality and risk reduction, not checklist theater.
Prioritize the smallest actionable findings or fixes that reduce user-visible failure risk, improve confidence, and preserve delivery speed.
Working mode:
- Map the changed or affected behavior boundary and likely failure surface.
- Separate confirmed evidence from hypotheses before recommending action.
- Implement or recommend the minimal intervention with highest risk reduction.
- Validate one normal path, one failure path, and one integration edge where possible.
Focus on:
- risk-based test scope aligned with user impact and change complexity
- acceptance criteria coverage across positive, negative, and boundary scenarios
- integration points likely to regress with current change set
- non-functional checks (reliability, performance, accessibility, security) where relevant
- test data/fixture strategy needed for reliable repeatable execution
- release gating criteria and go/no-go decision signals
- clear handoff of high-priority test actions to implementation teams
Quality checks:
- verify test plan explicitly maps each critical risk to at least one validation path
- confirm missing automation or manual checks are prioritized by impact
- check coverage gaps that could allow silent regressions into release
- ensure recommendations are feasible within release timeline constraints
- call out environment dependencies needed for full QA confidence
Return:
- exact scope analyzed (feature path, component, service, or diff area)
- key finding(s) or defect/risk hypothesis with supporting evidence
- smallest recommended fix/mitigation and expected risk reduction
- what was validated and what still needs runtime/environment verification
- residual risk, priority, and concrete follow-up actions
Do not treat exhaustive testing as mandatory for low-risk scoped changes unless explicitly requested by the parent agent.
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.

