manual-test-plan
Skill61 starsChanged 7 days agoMITView on GitHub
Produce an expert-QA manual UI test plan from an OpenSpec change plus a git commit range — every touched file accounted for, spec scenarios and tasks mapped to numbered test cases, and non-UI-testable changes flagged rather than dropped. Use when asked for a manual test plan, QA checklist, or UI verification plan after implementing and before opening a PR.
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- JBSommeling/claude-configtheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- ProxiBlue/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 7, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- ProxiBlue/claude-skills★ 18same name
- JBSommeling/claude-config★ 0same 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 repository16 other files it gives its agents.
- .claude/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- bootstrapSkill
- commitSkill
- dispatchSkill
- docs-digestSkill
- evalsSkill
- explain-codeSkill
- exploreSkill
- fix-testsSkill
- graphSkill
- reportSkill
- review-artifactsSkill
- review-codeSkill
- settleSkill
- shipSkill
- specSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
4
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 16
Write for a junior tester who will not read the code: exact navigation paths, exact expected results, explicit pass/fail criteria.
- Very specific: line 30
Default range: the merge base against the default branch.
- Very specific: line 52
If needsManualTestPlan is false, say so and stop.
- Very specific: line 58
Inventory: every changed file from --name-status.
- Very specific: line 66
Write to openspec/changes/<change-name>/manual-test-plan.md.
≈ “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.
Files
Produce a precise, executable manual UI test plan from an OpenSpec change and a git commit range.
Write for a junior tester who will not read the code: exact navigation paths, exact expected results, explicit pass/fail criteria. If a step needs someone to already know how the feature works, rewrite it.
1. Resolve scope
interlock changes # active changes
git log --oneline "$FROM".."$TO"
git diff --stat "$FROM" "$TO"
git diff --name-status "$FROM" "$TO"
git diff "$FROM" "$TO" -- <source files> # cap ~40; skip lockfiles and binariesDefault range: the merge base against the default branch. Read proposal.md, design.md, tasks.md, and specs/**/*.md for the change when one resolves.
Optional context — do not preload all of docs/:
.claude/graph/DOCS_DIGEST.mdif presentinterlock-graph context "<change> routes components forms" --budget 2000
2. Classify the surface — deterministically
interlock surface --changed <files> --jsonThis returns the tri-state per file, and it is authoritative. Do not re-derive the classification in prose; the whole reason it is a CLI is that this question used to get two different answers on the same diff.
| Class | Meaning |
UI-TESTABLE | Directly user-visible — pages, components, forms, navigation, copy, layout, client validation, loading and error states |
UI-INDIRECT | Reachable only through UI side effects — API routes the UI calls, server actions, data shaping that changes what is displayed |
NOT-UI-TESTABLE | Backend, infra, docs, tests, config, tooling with no user-visible effect |
If needsManualTestPlan is false, say so and stop. A backend-only change does not get a UI test plan, and writing one anyway teaches the reader to ignore these documents.
3. Analyze
- Inventory every changed file from
--name-status. - Map specs and tasks to cases. Spec scenarios and unchecked
tasks.mditems are the backbone; findings visible only in the diff become additional cases. - Cover the whole surface. Every
UI-TESTABLEandUI-INDIRECTfile appears in at least one test case (or is explicitly deferred to a shared flow). EveryNOT-UI-TESTABLEfile appears in the Non-UI table. Never silently drop a changed file — an unmentioned file reads as "tested" when it wasn't.
4. Write the plan
Write to openspec/changes/<change-name>/manual-test-plan.md. If nothing scopes it, write ./manual-test-plan.md and say so.
Output exactly this structure — no preamble, no sign-off inside the file:
# Manual UI Test Plan — <change-name or "unscoped">
**Scope:** <N commits / merge-base vs base> · HEAD `<short-hash>` · <branch>
**Intent:** <1–2 sentences from proposal.md, or inferred from commit subjects>
**Persona:** Expert QA — assume a clean session unless a case says otherwise
**Environment prep:** <accounts, feature flags, seed data, base URL — or "none">
---
## Coverage Matrix
| File | Status | Class | Covered by |
|------|--------|-------|------------|
| path/to/file | M/A/D/R | UI-TESTABLE / UI-INDIRECT / NOT-UI-TESTABLE | TC-01, TC-03 / — see Non-UI |
Every changed source file in the range MUST appear here.
---
## Test Cases
### TC-01 — <short title>
- **Priority:** P0 (blocks ship) / P1 (core flow) / P2 (edge / polish)
- **Traces to:** <spec scenario / task id / diff observation>
- **Covers files:** `path/a`, `path/b`
- **Preconditions:** …
- **Steps:**
1. …
2. …
- **Expected:** …
- **Pass / Fail:** Pass if … · Fail if …
### Happy path
TC ids proving the primary journey works end to end.
### Edge / negative
TC ids for validation errors, empty states, permissions, failure UX.
### Regression watch
TC ids for adjacent UI that tends to break when this area changes.
---
## Non-UI Changes (not manually testable in the UI)
| File | Why not UI-testable | Suggested verification |
|------|---------------------|------------------------|
| path/to/x | pure utility / infra / docs-only | unit test / CI job / manual CLI invoke / N/A |Group assertions into one case when they share a navigation path; split them when the outcomes differ.
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.

