team-qa
Skill8 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub
Orchestrate the QA team through a full testing cycle. Coordinates qa-lead (strategy + test plan) and qa-tester (test case writing + bug reporting) to produce a complete QA package for a sprint or feature. Covers: test plan generation, test case writing, smoke check gate, manual QA execution, and sign-off report.
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
25 rules. 9 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 11 are very specific to this project.
9
Common
Most of the 8 edited versions we read keep these.
5
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
11
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Common: line 10
When this skill is invoked, orchestrate the QA team through a structured testing cycle.
- Common: line 24
Use the Task tool to spawn each team member as a subagent:
- Distinctive: line 28
Always provide full context in each agent's prompt (story file paths, QA plan path, scope constraints).
- Common: line 34
Before doing anything else, gather the full scope:
- Very specific: line 37
If argument is a sprint identifier (e.g., sprint-03): read all story files in production/sprints/[sprint]/
- Very specific: line 38
If argument is feature: [system-name]: glob story files tagged for that system
- Very specific: line 39
If no argument: read production/session-state/active.md and production/sprint-status.yaml (if present) to infer the active sprint
- Very specific: line 41
Read production/stage.txt to confirm the current project phase.
- Common: line 51
Read each story file
- Very specific: line 56
Check tests/smoke/ for smoke test scenarios.
- Common: line 64
If the smoke check result is FAIL, the qa-lead must list the failures prominently.
- Very specific: line 78
If smoke check FAIL: do not proceed to Phase 3.
- Common: line 79
If smoke check PASS WITH WARNINGS: note the warnings for the sign-off report and continue.
- Common: line 80
If blockers are present: list them explicitly.
- Very specific: line 95
Ask: "May I write the QA plan to production/qa/qa-plan-[sprint]-[date].md?"
- Common: line 97
Write only after receiving approval.
- Very specific: line 120
Use AskUserQuestion per story group (batched 3-4 at a time):
- Very specific: line 145
After each FAIL result: use AskUserQuestion to collect the failure description, then spawn qa-tester via Task to write a formal bug report …
- Common: line 149
After collecting all results, summarize:
- Distinctive: line 186
APPROVED: All stories PASS or PASS WITH NOTES.
- Very specific: line 193
NOT APPROVED: "Resolve S1/S2 bugs and re-run /team-qa or targeted manual QA before advancing."
- Very specific: line 195
Ask: "May I write this QA sign-off report to production/qa/qa-signoff-[sprint]-[date].md?"
- Distinctive: line 201
If any spawned agent (via Task) returns BLOCKED, errors, or cannot complete:
- Distinctive: line 204
Assess dependencies: Check whether the blocked agent's output is required by subsequent phases.
- Distinctive: line 208
Stop here and resolve the blocker first
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 8 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
When this skill is invoked, orchestrate the QA team through a structured testing cycle.
Decision Points: At each phase transition, use AskUserQuestion to present
the user with the subagent's proposals as selectable options. Write the agent's
full analysis in conversation, then capture the decision with concise labels.
The user must approve before moving to the next phase.
Team Composition
- qa-lead — QA strategy, test plan generation, story classification, sign-off report
- qa-tester — Test case writing, bug report writing, manual QA documentation
How to Delegate
Use the Task tool to spawn each team member as a subagent:
subagent_type: qa-lead— Strategy, planning, classification, sign-offsubagent_type: qa-tester— Test case writing and bug report writing
Always provide full context in each agent's prompt (story file paths, QA plan path, scope constraints). Launch independent qa-tester tasks in parallel where possible (e.g., multiple stories in Phase 5 can be scaffolded simultaneously).
Pipeline
Phase 1: Load Context
Before doing anything else, gather the full scope:
- Detect the current sprint or feature scope from the argument:
- If argument is a sprint identifier (e.g.,
sprint-03): read all story files inproduction/sprints/[sprint]/ - If argument is
feature: [system-name]: glob story files tagged for that system - If no argument: read
production/session-state/active.mdandproduction/sprint-status.yaml(if present) to infer the active sprint
- If argument is a sprint identifier (e.g.,
- Read
production/stage.txtto confirm the current project phase. - Count stories found and report to the user:
"QA cycle starting for [sprint/feature]. Found [N] stories. Current stage: [stage]. Ready to begin QA strategy?"
Phase 2: QA Strategy (qa-lead)
Spawn qa-lead via Task to review all in-scope stories and produce a QA strategy.
Prompt the qa-lead to:
- Read each story file
- Classify each story by type: Logic / Integration / Visual/Feel / UI / Config/Data
- Identify which stories require automated test evidence vs. manual QA
- Flag any stories with missing acceptance criteria or missing test evidence that would block QA
- Estimate manual QA effort (number of test sessions needed)
- Check
tests/smoke/for smoke test scenarios; for each, assess whether it can be verified given the current build. Produce a smoke check verdict: PASS / PASS WITH WARNINGS [list] / FAIL [list of failures] Produce a strategy summary table and smoke check result:
Story Type Automated Required Manual Required Blocker? Smoke Check: [PASS / PASS WITH WARNINGS / FAIL] — [details if not PASS]
If the smoke check result is FAIL, the qa-lead must list the failures prominently. QA cannot proceed past the strategy phase with a failed smoke check.
Present the qa-lead's full strategy to the user, then use AskUserQuestion:
question: "QA Strategy Review"
options:
- "Looks good — proceed to test plan"
- "Adjust story types before proceeding"
- "Skip blocked stories and proceed with the rest"
- "Smoke check failed — fix issues and re-run /team-qa"
- "Cancel — resolve blockers first"If smoke check FAIL: do not proceed to Phase 3. Surface the failures and stop. The user must fix them and re-run /team-qa.
If smoke check PASS WITH WARNINGS: note the warnings for the sign-off report and continue.
If blockers are present: list them explicitly. The user may choose to skip blocked stories or cancel the cycle.
Phase 3: Test Plan Generation
Using the strategy from Phase 2, produce a structured test plan document.
The test plan should cover:
- Scope: sprint/feature name, story count, dates
- Story Classification Table: from Phase 2 strategy
- Automated Test Requirements: which stories need test files, expected paths in
tests/ - Manual QA Scope: which stories need manual walkthrough and what to validate
- Out of Scope: what is explicitly not being tested this cycle and why
- Entry Criteria: what must be true before QA can begin (smoke check pass, build stable)
- Exit Criteria: what constitutes a completed QA cycle (all stories PASS or FAIL with bugs filed)
Ask: "May I write the QA plan to production/qa/qa-plan-[sprint]-[date].md?"
Write only after receiving approval.
Phase 4: Test Case Writing (qa-tester)
Smoke check is performed as part of Phase 2 (QA Strategy). If the smoke check returned FAIL in Phase 2, the cycle was stopped there. This phase only runs when the Phase 2 smoke check was PASS or PASS WITH WARNINGS.
For each story requiring manual QA (Visual/Feel, UI, Integration without automated tests):
Spawn qa-tester via Task for each story (run in parallel where possible), providing:
- The story file path
- The relevant section of the QA plan for that story
- The GDD acceptance criteria for the system being tested (if available)
- Instructions to write detailed test cases covering all acceptance criteria
Each test case set should include:
- Preconditions: game state required before testing begins
- Steps: numbered, unambiguous actions
- Expected Result: what should happen
- Actual Result: field left blank for the tester to fill in
- Pass/Fail: field left blank
Present the test cases to the user for review before execution. Group by story.
Use AskUserQuestion per story group (batched 3-4 at a time):
question: "Test cases ready for [Story Group]. Review before manual QA begins?"
options:
- "Approved — begin manual QA for these stories"
- "Revise test cases for [story name]"
- "Skip manual QA for [story name] — not ready"Phase 6: Manual QA Execution
Walk through each story in the approved manual QA list.
Batch stories into groups of 3-4 and use AskUserQuestion for each:
question: "Manual QA — [Story Title]\n[brief description of what to test]"
options:
- "PASS — all acceptance criteria verified"
- "PASS WITH NOTES — minor issues found (describe after)"
- "FAIL — criteria not met (describe after)"
- "BLOCKED — cannot test yet (reason)"After each FAIL result: use AskUserQuestion to collect the failure description, then spawn qa-tester via Task to write a formal bug report in production/qa/bugs/.
Bug report naming: BUG-[NNN]-[short-slug].md (increment NNN from existing bugs in the directory).
After collecting all results, summarize:
- Stories PASS: [count]
- Stories PASS WITH NOTES: [count]
- Stories FAIL: [count] — bugs filed: [IDs]
- Stories BLOCKED: [count]
Phase 7: QA Sign-Off Report
Spawn qa-lead via Task to produce the sign-off report using all results from Phases 4–6.
The sign-off report format:
## QA Sign-Off Report: [Sprint/Feature]
**Date**: [date]
**QA Lead sign-off**: [pending]
### Test Coverage Summary
| Story | Type | Auto Test | Manual QA | Result |
|-------|------|-----------|-----------|--------|
| [title] | Logic | PASS | — | PASS |
| [title] | Visual | — | PASS | PASS |
### Bugs Found
| ID | Story | Severity | Status |
|----|-------|----------|--------|
| BUG-001 | [story] | S2 | Open |
### Verdict: APPROVED / APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS / NOT APPROVED
**Conditions** (if any): [list what must be fixed before the build advances]
### Next Step
[guidance based on verdict]Verdict rules:
- APPROVED: All stories PASS or PASS WITH NOTES; no S1/S2 bugs open
- APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS: S3/S4 bugs open, or PASS WITH NOTES issues documented; no S1/S2 bugs
- NOT APPROVED: Any S1/S2 bugs open; or stories FAIL without documented workaround
Next step guidance by verdict:
- APPROVED: "Build is ready for the next phase. Run
/gate-checkto validate advancement." - APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS: "Resolve conditions before advancing. S3/S4 bugs may be deferred to polish."
- NOT APPROVED: "Resolve S1/S2 bugs and re-run
/team-qaor targeted manual QA before advancing."
Ask: "May I write this QA sign-off report to production/qa/qa-signoff-[sprint]-[date].md?"
Write only after receiving approval.
Error Recovery Protocol
If any spawned agent (via Task) returns BLOCKED, errors, or cannot complete:
- Surface immediately: Report "[AgentName]: BLOCKED — [reason]" to the user before continuing to dependent phases
- Assess dependencies: Check whether the blocked agent's output is required by subsequent phases. If yes, do not proceed past that dependency point without user input.
- Offer options via AskUserQuestion with choices:
- Skip this agent and note the gap in the final report
- Retry with narrower scope
- Stop here and resolve the blocker first
- Always produce a partial report — output whatever was completed. Never discard work because one agent blocked.
Common blockers:
- Input file missing (story not found, GDD absent) → redirect to the skill that creates it
- ADR status is Proposed → do not implement; run
/architecture-decisionfirst - Scope too large → split into two stories via
/create-stories - Conflicting instructions between ADR and story → surface the conflict, do not guess
Output
A summary covering: stories in scope, smoke check result, manual QA results, bugs filed (with IDs and severities), and the final APPROVED / APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS / NOT APPROVED verdict.
Verdict: COMPLETE — QA cycle finished. Verdict: BLOCKED — smoke check failed or critical blocker prevented cycle completion; partial report produced.
Other versions9 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- dawn840705/claude-code-studios★ 1100% same
Edited · 6
- Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios★ 27k25% same
- striderZA/OpenCodeGameStudios★ 9398% same
- dawn840705/codex-code-studios★ 1790% same
- hongyuanc/codex-game-studios★ 546% same
- HunLuanZhiZhu/Game-Studios-Plugin★ 178% same
- venus2099/codex-game-studios★ 125% same
Wrote their own version · 2
- cenconq25/claude-code-app-studio★ 40same name
- DangQuangSE/team-development-skills★ 19same 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 repository76 other files it gives its agents.
- CCGS Skill Testing Framework/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- design/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- docs/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- src/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- adoptSkill
- architecture-decisionSkill
- architecture-reviewSkill
- art-bibleSkill
- 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-reviewSkill
- design-systemSkill
- dev-storySkill
- estimateSkill
- gate-checkSkill
- helpSkill
- hotfixSkill
- launch-checklistSkill
- localizeSkill
- map-systemsSkill
- milestone-reviewSkill
- onboardSkill
- patch-notesSkill
- perf-profileSkill
- playtest-reportSkill
- project-stage-detectSkill
- propagate-design-changeSkill
- prototypeSkill
- qa-planSkill
- quick-designSkill
- regression-suiteSkill
- release-checklistSkill
- retrospectiveSkill
- reverse-documentSkill
- review-all-gddsSkill
- scope-checkSkill
- security-auditSkill
- setup-engineSkill
- skill-improveSkill
- skill-testSkill
- smoke-checkSkill
- soak-testSkill
- sprint-planSkill
- sprint-statusSkill
- startSkill
- story-doneSkill
- The first 60 shown.
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.

