test-strategy
Skill300 starsChanged 43 days agoMITView on GitHub
Write TEST-STRATEGY.md, a test plan per RFC, before the tests are written.
39 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- frnkgns/Overgeared-Skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- reddygopalkrishna/developer-agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- l-gevity/l-gevity-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
- hatemecha/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- lelborn/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- MarieLynneBlock/arcanum-artifextheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use database-testing, data-pipelines and 10 more.
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.
petrkindlmannSkilldatabase-testing
Validate database integrity, test migrations forward and backward, verify schema constraints, manage seed data, detect migration drift, and identify query performance issues. Covers PostgreSQL, MySQL, MongoDB with Prisma, TypeORM, Drizzle, and SQLAlchemy, plus Testcontainers test databases. Use when: "database test," "migration test," "migration rollback," "rollback test," "data integrity," "SQL test," "schema validation," "seed data," "query performance," "Testcontainers." Not for: synthetic data generation/masking at scale — use test-data-management; Docker/IaC test-environment provisioning — use test-environments; SQL injection — use security-testing. Related: test-data-management, test-environments, security-testing, ci-cd-integration.
Also in 3 projects that use this
YepAPISkilldata-pipelines
ETL patterns, cron scheduling, queue-based processing, and batch jobs with Inngest/BullMQ.
Also in 3 projects that use this
testified-ossSkillexploratory-testing
Guide exploratory testing sessions including charter creation, session-based testing, heuristics application, and finding documentation. Use when planning exploratory testing, conducting test sessions, or documenting discoveries.
Also in 3 projects that use this
ffsshhttiikkSkillunit-testing
Unit testing best practices and patterns
Also in 4 projects that use this
AnthropicSkillincident-response
Run an incident response workflow — triage, communicate, and write postmortem. Trigger with "we have an incident", "production is down", an alert that needs severity assessment, a status update mid-incident, or when writing a blameless postmortem after resolution.
Also in 7 projects that use this
OpenAISkillobservability
Vercel Observability expert guidance — Drains (logs, traces, speed insights, web analytics), Web Analytics, Speed Insights, runtime logs, custom events, OpenTelemetry integration, and monitoring dashboards. Use when instrumenting, debugging, or optimizing application performance and user experience on Vercel.
Also in 6 projects that use this
Other versions39 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 39
- petrkindlmann/qa-skills★ 209same name
- kid-sid/claude-spellbook★ 190same name
- avelikiy/great_cto★ 112same name
- l-gevity/l-gevity-skills★ 80same name
- fishzjp/qa-skills★ 62same name
- nahid-sparktales/agent-dispatcher★ 59same name
- nimadorostkar/Claude-Skills-collection★ 33same name
- caiaffa/claude-code-ultimate-engineering-system★ 17same name
- jpantsjoha/ai-native-developer-experience★ 13same name
- Mozurok/fhorja.dev★ 10same name
29 more not listed
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 repository12 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- create-prdSkill
- document-existingSkill
- extract-featuresSkill
- generate-rfcsSkill
- generate-rulesSkill
- implement-rfcSkill
- manage-changesSkill
- review-rfcSkill
- verify-prdSkill
- workflow-statusSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 34 edited versions we read keep these.
5
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 12
Create a structured test strategy that ensures thorough coverage of all implemented functionality.
- Distinctive: line 27
Before planning anything, run the existing test suite and report the actual baseline: how many tests exist, which files they live in, and …
- Distinctive: line 31
If no suite exists yet, or you cannot execute commands in this environment, say so explicitly rather than assuming coverage.
- Distinctive: line 72
Test data generation approach (factories, fixtures, seeds)
- Distinctive: line 92
Verify every internal cross-reference -- feature IDs, rule IDs, RFC numbers, section references -- points at what the surrounding text …
- Very specific: line 94
If trace-check.py is available -- in a scripts/ folder beside these instructions, or in the project's own scripts/ folder -- run it on the …
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 34 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
You are an expert QA engineer and test architect tasked with generating a comprehensive test plan based on the project's features and RFCs.
Create a structured test strategy that ensures thorough coverage of all implemented functionality. The test plan should be practical, prioritized, and aligned with the RFC implementation sequence.
Inputs
- PRD.md for the Product Type section
- FEATURES.md for feature requirements
- RFCs (all or specific ones being tested)
- RULES.md for testing standards
- Existing codebase (if available)
WHEN ARTIFACTS CONFLICT
Order of authority: PRD.md > FEATURES.md > RULES.md > RFCs > generated plans. Where this prompt's generic guidance conflicts with RULES.md, RULES.md wins -- it was written for this project and this prompt was not. Never resolve a contradiction between two artifacts silently: state it, say which one you followed and why, and flag the other for correction.
STEP 0: ESTABLISH THE BASELINE
Before planning anything, run the existing test suite and report the actual baseline: how many tests exist, which files they live in, and what passes or fails. Paste the real output.
Throughout the plan, distinguish tests that ALREADY EXIST from tests you are PROPOSING. Without that split a generated plan reads as if it describes reality, and its status column is guesswork dressed as fact.
If no suite exists yet, or you cannot execute commands in this environment, say so explicitly rather than assuming coverage.
PRODUCT TYPE
Read the Product Type section of PRD.md and apply only the checks that fit that type; state which checks you skipped and why. Skipping must be visible, never silent. If PRD.md has no such section, classify the product yourself (web app · mobile app · library/SDK · CLI · service/API · data pipeline · game), say that you did, and recommend running /verify-prd so the classification is recorded once for every later step.
Test Plan Sections
Replace sections that do not fit the product type rather than padding them. For a library of pure functions, most of sections 2-6 do not apply; the useful equivalents are numeric correctness, immutability of caller-owned data, determinism, API surface, bundle size, and supply chain.
1. UNIT TESTING
- Identify key functions and modules requiring unit tests
- Specify edge cases and boundary conditions for each
- Define mock/stub strategy for external dependencies
- Identify logic that requires exhaustive coverage. If RULES.md defines a coverage policy, follow it rather than imposing a percentage of your own
2. INTEGRATION TESTING
- API endpoint testing (request/response validation, error codes)
- Database interaction testing (CRUD operations, migrations, constraints)
- Third-party service integration testing
- Inter-component communication verification
3. END-TO-END TESTING
- Critical user journey test scenarios (happy path and error paths)
- Cross-browser and cross-device considerations
- Authentication and authorization flow testing
- Data flow verification from input to persistence
4. SECURITY TESTING
- Authentication and authorization boundary testing
- Input validation and injection testing (SQL, XSS, CSRF)
- Data privacy verification (PII handling, encryption)
- Rate limiting and abuse prevention testing
5. PERFORMANCE TESTING
- Load testing scenarios with expected thresholds
- Response time benchmarks for critical endpoints
- Resource utilization limits (memory, CPU, connections)
- Stress testing for degradation behavior
6. TEST DATA STRATEGY
- Test data generation approach (factories, fixtures, seeds)
- Database state management between test runs
- Sensitive data handling in test environments
- Data cleanup procedures
Output Format
For each RFC/feature, provide:
- Test cases with clear descriptions and steps
- Priority (Must have / Should have / Could have) -- taken from the feature's existing MoSCoW rating in FEATURES.md, not reassigned here
- Expected results and failure criteria
- Prerequisites and dependencies
Provide a test execution order that aligns with the RFC implementation sequence. Highlight any testing gaps where manual testing may be needed.
Save the plan to TEST-STRATEGY.md, with one section per RFC headed ## RFC-[ID]: [title], so /implement-rfc and /review-rfc can find the tests planned for the RFC in front of them. If TEST-STRATEGY.md already exists, update it in place: keep the sections of RFCs that are already implemented, and mark changed plans rather than silently rewriting them.
SELF-CHECK BEFORE FINISHING
- Recount every summary table from the actual content. Never carry a count forward from earlier in your own output.
- Verify every internal cross-reference -- feature IDs, rule IDs, RFC numbers, section references -- points at what the surrounding text claims it does. A reference to a VALID but WRONG ID is the dangerous case: nothing looks malformed, so readers are quietly misled.
- Confirm no two tables in the document disagree with each other.
- If
trace-check.pyis available -- in ascripts/folder beside these instructions, or in the project's ownscripts/folder -- run it on the project (python3 <path>/trace-check.py .) and fix every FAIL it reports. It checks IDs, coverage and dependencies mechanically, which reading cannot do reliably. - State that you ran this check and what it turned up.
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.

