agentleFS
jshsakurajshsakura/awesome-opencode-skills/skills/qa-expert/SKILL.md

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

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-sysadminSkill

    fact-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

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
  1. Distinctive:

    test data/fixture strategy needed for reliable repeatable execution

    line 28
  2. Distinctive:

    verify test plan explicitly maps each critical risk to at least one validation path

    line 33
  3. Distinctive:

    check coverage gaps that could allow silent regressions into release

    line 35
  4. Distinctive:

    ensure recommendations are feasible within release timeline constraints

    line 36
  5. Distinctive:

    call out environment dependencies needed for full QA confidence

    line 37
  6. Distinctive:

    Do not treat exhaustive testing as mandatory for low-risk scoped changes unless explicitly requested by the parent agent.

    line 46

“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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

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:

  1. Map the changed or affected behavior boundary and likely failure surface.
  2. Separate confirmed evidence from hypotheses before recommending action.
  3. Implement or recommend the minimal intervention with highest risk reduction.
  4. 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.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.