agentleFS
Sign inStart free
mejbaurbaharmejbaurbahar/software-tester-skills/skills/functional-testing/SKILL.md

functional-testing

Skill1 starsChanged 52 days agoMITView on GitHub

Use when verifying that a feature or user flow behaves according to requirements/specs — functional correctness testing of forms, workflows, business logic, and CRUD operations, whether done manually or via automation.

2 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈2

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Verify the system does what the requirements and acceptance criteria say, from the user's point of view.

    line 13
  2. Distinctive:

    Alternate flows: every branch, conditional, optional field, toggle, role.

    line 18
  3. Very specific:

    Do not treat the UI as the oracle.

    line 38
  4. Very specific:

    All Must acceptance criteria verified · no open Sev1/Sev2 · Sev3 defects triaged with workarounds · coverage of requirements traced …

    line 47

≈ “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.

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

Functional Testing

Verify the system does what the requirements and acceptance criteria say, from the user's point of view. Non-functional qualities (performance, security, accessibility) have their own skills.

Workflow

  1. Extract acceptance criteria from the spec/ticket. If none exist, derive them from the UI/PRD and confirm before testing against assumptions (requirements-testing-review).
  2. Happy path first: the primary flow the feature exists for.
  3. Alternate flows: every branch, conditional, optional field, toggle, role.
  4. Negative flows: invalid input, missing required fields, unauthorized actions, expired sessions, duplicate submissions.
  5. Derive cases systematically (test-design-techniques): partitions and boundaries, decision tables for business rules, state models for lifecycles.
  6. Cross-check business rules beyond the UI: does the discount change the persisted order total, not just a struck-through price?

CRUD checklist

OperationVerify
CreateRequired/optional validation, duplicates, defaults, success feedback, record actually persisted (API/DB, not just a toast), audit fields
ReadEmpty list, page 0/last page, sort/filter combinations, stale data after mutation, permission-filtered results
UpdatePartial updates, concurrent edit conflicts, optimistic UI vs persisted state, validation re-applied, history/audit
DeleteSoft vs hard delete, cascades and orphans, confirmation, undo, permissions, referential integrity

Form checklist

Required vs optional enforced client and server side · field constraints (length, type, format, locale) · unicode/emoji/whitespace · submit disabled while in flight (double-submit) · error text points at the right field in plain language · autosave/draft behavior · tab order and keyboard submit · paste and browser autofill · file upload limits.

Multi-step workflows (checkout, onboarding, wizards)

Abandon and resume at each step · go back and change an earlier answer (does downstream state update?) · run the flow twice without a refresh (state leakage) · browser back/forward/refresh mid-flow · session expiry mid-flow · final committed state equals what the wizard displayed.

Business logic verification

Do not treat the UI as the oracle. Cross-check totals, discounts, taxes, eligibility and permission-derived visibility against API responses (browser network tab or curl) and, where accessible, the database.

Data and environment

Realistic and edge data (test-data-engineering): long names, special characters, boundary quantities/amounts, time zones (date-time-timezone-testing), multiple roles and locales. Record build, environment and data used for reproducibility.

Tooling

Browser DevTools (network, console, storage), Playwright/Cypress for repeatable flows (test-automation), API clients for state checks (api-testing). Automate flows you run repeatedly; log defects with bug-reporting.

Exit criteria

All Must acceptance criteria verified · no open Sev1/Sev2 · Sev3 defects triaged with workarounds · coverage of requirements traced (test-planning-documentation).

Related

manual-testing, exploratory-testing, acceptance-testing, regression-testing, test-design-techniques, bug-reporting

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.

Check your setup, free