Risk-based quality engineering strategy for modern software delivery.
Works with
AI-first code editor with Composer
Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:
node --versionqa-testing-strategyExecute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:
Fetches qa-testing-strategy from vasilyu1983/ai-agents-public and configures it for Cursor.
The CLI shows a list of agents. Use arrow keys and space to select Cursor:
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
Restart Cursor to activate qa-testing-strategy. Access via /qa-testing-strategy in your agent's command palette.
We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.
Skills execute code in your environment. Always review source, verify the publisher, and test in isolation before production.
Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning
Automate repetitive workflows and reduce manual effort
Example
Generate reports, summarize documents, draft communications
Save 3-5 hours per week on routine tasks
Learn new skills, understand complex topics, get expert guidance
Example
Explain concepts, provide examples, suggest learning resources
Accelerate learning and skill development by 2x
Enhance output quality through reviews, suggestions, and refinements
Example
Review drafts, suggest improvements, catch errors
Improve work quality by 30-40% with less effort
0
total installs
0
this week
53
GitHub stars
0
upvotes
Run in your terminal
0
installs
0
this week
53
stars
Risk-based quality engineering strategy for modern software delivery.
Core references: curated links in data/sources.json (SLOs/error budgets, contracts, E2E, OpenTelemetry). Start with references/operational-playbook.md for a compact, navigable overview.
| Need | Skill |
|---|---|
| Debug failing tests or incidents | qa-debugging |
| Test LLM agents/personas | qa-agent-testing |
| Perform security audit/threat model | software-security-appsec |
| Design CI/CD pipelines and infra | ops-devops-platform |
| Test Type | Goal | Typical Use |
|---|---|---|
| Unit | Prove logic and invariants fast | Pure functions, core business rules |
| Component | Validate UI behavior in isolation | UI components and state transitions |
| Integration | Validate boundaries with real deps | API + DB, queues, external adapters |
| Contract | Prevent breaking changes cross-team | OpenAPI/AsyncAPI/JSON Schema/Protobuf |
| E2E | Validate critical user journeys | 1–2 “money paths” per product area |
| Performance | Enforce budgets and capacity | Load, stress, soak, regression trends |
| Visual | Catch UI regressions | Layout/visual diffs on stable pages |
| Accessibility | Automate WCAG checks | axe smoke + targeted manual audits |
| Security | Catch common web vulns early | DAST smoke + critical checks in CI |
/\
/E2E\ 5-10% - Critical journeys
/------\
/Integr. \ 15-25% - API, DB, queues
/----------\
/Component \ 20-30% - UI modules
/------------\
/ Unit \ 40-60% - Logic and invariants
/--------------\
Need to test: [Feature Type]
│
├─ Pure business logic/invariants? → Unit tests (mock boundaries)
│
├─ UI component/state transitions? → Component tests
│ └─ Cross-page user journey? → E2E tests
│
├─ API Endpoint?
│ ├─ Single service boundary? → Integration tests (real DB/deps)
│ └─ Cross-service compatibility? → Contract tests (schema/versioning)
│
├─ Event-driven/API schema evolution? → Contract + backward-compat tests
│
└─ Performance-critical? → k6 load testing
| Budget | Target |
|---|---|
| PR gate | p50 ≤ 10 min, p95 ≤ 20 min |
| Mainline health | ≥ 99% green builds/day |
flaky_failures / total_test_executions (where flaky_failure = fail_then_pass_on_rerun)it('should apply discount', () => {
// Arrange
const order = { total: 150 };
// Act
const result = calculateDiscount(order);
// Assert
expect(result.discount).toBe(15);
});
class LoginPage {
async login(email: string, password: string) {
await this.page.fill('[data-testid="email"]', email);
await this.page.fill('[data-testid="password"]', password);
await this.page.click('[data-testid="submit"]');
}
}
| Anti-Pattern | Problem | Solution |
|---|---|---|
| Testing implementation | Breaks on refactor | Test behavior |
| Shared mutable state | Flaky tests | Isolate test data |
| sleep() in tests | Slow, unreliable | Use proper waits |
| Everything E2E | Slow, expensive | Use test pyramid |
| Ignoring flaky tests | False confidence | Fix or quarantine |
Before release, run a coverage audit that maps product features/backlog IDs to direct test evidence.
direct, indirect, none)| Resource | Purpose |
|---|---|
| comprehensive-testing-guide.md | End-to-end playbook across layers |
| operational-playbook.md | Testing pyramid, BDD, CI gates |
| shift-left-testing.md | Contract-first, BDD, continuous testing |
| test-automation-patterns.md | Reliable patterns and anti-patterns |
| playwright-webapp-testing.md | Playwright patterns |
| chaos-resilience-testing.md | Chaos engineering |
| observability-driven-testing.md | OpenTelemetry, trace-based |
| contract-testing-2026.md | Pact, Specmatic |
| synthetic-test-data.md | Privacy-safe, ephemeral test data |
| test-environment-management.md | Environment provisioning and lifecycle |
| quality-metrics-dashboard.md | Quality metrics and dashboards |
| compliance-testing.md | SOC2, HIPAA, GDPR, PCI-DSS testing |
| feature-matrix-vs-test-matrix-gate.md | Release-blocking feature-to-test coverage audit |
| Template | Purpose |
|---|---|
| template-test-case-design.md | Given/When/Then and test oracles |
| test-strategy-template.md | Risk-based strategy |
| template-flaky-test-triage.md | Flake triage runbook |
| template-jest-vitest.md | Unit test patterns |
| template-api-integration.md | API + DB integration tests |
| template-playwright.md | Playwright E2E |
| template-visual-testing.md | Visual regression testing |
| template-k6-load-testing.md | k6 performance |
| automation-pipeline-template.md | CI stages, budgets, gates |
| template-cucumber-gherkin.md | BDD feature files and steps |
| template-release-coverage-audit.md | Feature matrix vs test matrix release audit |
| File | Purpose |
|---|---|
| sources.json | External references |
Use this sequence for feature branches that touch user flows, pricing, localization, or analytics.
# 1) Static checks
npm run lint
npm run typecheck
# 2) Fast correctness
npm run test:unit
# 3) Critical path checks
npm run test:e2e -- --grep "@critical"
# 4) Instrumentation gate (if configured)
npm run test:analytics-gate
# 5) Production build
npm run build
Always report:
Prerequisites
Time Estimate
15-45 minutes depending on use case complexity
Steps
Common Pitfalls
✓ Do
✗ Don't
💡 Pro Tips
✓ Use when
Use when skill capabilities match your task, clear ROI on time saved, and you can validate outputs. Best for repetitive tasks, learning, and quality improvement.
✗ Avoid when
Avoid when task requires deep expertise you can't validate, involves sensitive decisions, or when learning process is more valuable than speed of completion.
vasilyu1983/ai-agents-public
github/awesome-copilot
aj-geddes/useful-ai-prompts
refoundai/lenny-skills
skillcreatorai/ai-agent-skills
supercent-io/skills-template
Useful defaults in qa-testing-strategy — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.
qa-testing-strategy fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
We added qa-testing-strategy from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.
Registry listing for qa-testing-strategy matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
Useful defaults in qa-testing-strategy — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.
Useful defaults in qa-testing-strategy — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.
I recommend qa-testing-strategy for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.
qa-testing-strategy fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
qa-testing-strategy fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
qa-testing-strategy has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
showing 1-10 of 74