Introduces a full shift-left QA pipeline with Story Type classification as the backbone of the Definition of Done: New skills: - /test-setup: scaffold test framework + CI/CD per engine (Godot/Unity/Unreal) - /qa-plan: generate sprint test plan classifying stories by type - /smoke-check: critical path gate (PASS/PASS WITH WARNINGS/FAIL) before QA hand-off - /team-qa: orchestrate qa-lead + qa-tester through full QA cycle Story Type classification (Logic/Integration/Visual/Feel/UI/Config/Data): - Logic and Integration: BLOCKING DoD gate — unit/integration test required - Visual/Feel and UI: ADVISORY — screenshot + sign-off evidence required - Config/Data: ADVISORY — smoke check pass sufficient Updated skills: story-done (test evidence gate), story-readiness (Story Type check), gate-check (test framework at Technical Setup, test evidence at Polish/Release), create-epics-stories (Type field + Test Evidence section) Updated agents: qa-lead (shift-left philosophy + evidence table), qa-tester (automated test patterns for Godot/Unity/Unreal) New templates: test-evidence.md (manual sign-off record), test-plan.md (sprint-oriented QA plan replacing generic feature template) Updated coding-standards.md: Testing Standards section with DoD table, test rules, what NOT to automate, and engine-specific CI/CD commands Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
8.6 KiB
name, description, argument-hint, user-invocable, allowed-tools, agent
| name | description | argument-hint | user-invocable | allowed-tools | agent |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| team-qa | 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. | [sprint | feature: system-name] | true | Read, Glob, Grep, Write, Task | qa-lead |
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)
- Produce a strategy summary table:
Story Type Automated Required Manual Required Blocker?
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"
- "Cancel — resolve blockers first"
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: Smoke Check Gate
Before any manual QA begins, run the smoke check.
Spawn qa-lead via Task with instructions to:
- Review the
tests/smoke/directory for the current smoke test list - Check whether each smoke test scenario can be verified given the current build
- Produce a smoke check result: PASS / PASS WITH WARNINGS / FAIL
Report the result to the user:
- PASS: "Smoke check passed. Proceeding to test case writing."
- PASS WITH WARNINGS: "Smoke check passed with warnings: [list issues]. These are non-blocking. Proceeding — note these for the sign-off report."
- FAIL: "Smoke check failed. QA cannot begin until these issues are resolved:
[list failures]
Fix them and re-run
/smoke-check, or re-run/team-qaonce resolved."
On FAIL: stop the cycle and surface the list of failures. Do not proceed.
Phase 5: Test Case Writing (qa-tester)
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.
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.