Test Strategy Review: Review scope, risk, and release gates based on evidence
This guide uses one concrete task to explain Test Strategy Review: Review whether a strategy covers major risks, resource limits, environment dependencies, and exit criteria.
Awesome QA Skills organizes Skills by language and testing stage. The series overview covers repository structure and shared installation options; this guide stays with Test Strategy Review.
Read the source Skill first
The main prompt covers Input contract, Input validation and conflicts, Eight-dimension review, Finding classification, Ownership and revision requests. Those headings are navigation; the project artifacts still provide the facts.
This Skill has no separate examples directory. The sample below is derived from its entry point, main prompt, and eval constraints.
Findings need a location
Review whether a strategy covers major risks, resource limits, environment dependencies, and exit criteria
“This could be better” gives the author nothing to act on.
| Severity | Location | Finding | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | Input contract | Source priority is undefined | Add conflict and degradation rules |
| P2 | Output contract | Conclusions have no evidence field | Add source, status, and owner |
Every finding needs a location, impact, and practical fix. Otherwise it is review noise.
Compare one finding before and after revision
For Review whether a strategy covers major risks, resource limits, environment dependencies, and exit criteria, the first draft often contains a broad quality request.
Before: Check output quality and make the result accurate and complete.
After: Every conclusion carries source, status, and owner.
Use assumption when no source exists. Do not use passed without a run record.The second contract is testable. During a Input contract and Input validation and conflicts review, also inspect trigger overlap, degraded behavior for missing input, and examples that imply execution without evidence.
| Recheck | Method | Passing signal |
|---|---|---|
| Trigger | Run positive and neighboring negative requests | Correct activation boundary |
| Contract | Try input with missing fields | Missing facts are named |
| Example | Trace each claim to a source | No invented files or results |
| Scope | Read the diff | Unrelated rules remain untouched |
A prompt you can adapt
Replace the bracketed fields with project facts. Specific material leaves less room for guessing.
Use the test-strategy-review Skill.
Task: Review whether a strategy covers major risks, resource limits, environment dependencies, and exit criteria
Version and environment: [requirement / build / environment]
Inputs: [file paths or links]
Scope: [included and excluded journeys]
Constraints: [accounts, data, time, compliance]
Give location, severity, impact, and a proposed edit for every finding. Separate contract gaps, factual defects, and preference; include a recheck method.
Finish with open questions. Do not invent missing facts.Use the first pass to inspect structure and gaps. Supply missing material before asking for the handoff-ready artifact.
Advanced use, from one call to a maintained flow
Turn representative findings into regression examples. After a Test Strategy Review edit, run expected-pass, expected-reject, and missing-input checks.
A three-Skill chain
test-strategy → test-strategy-review → test-case-writing
| Handoff | Payload | Receiver check |
|---|---|---|
| Upstream to test-strategy-review | Source versions, scope, risks, open questions | Test Strategy Review staleness and conflicts |
| test-strategy-review to downstream | Primary artifact, evidence index, unfinished work | Test Strategy Review executability and owners |
| Feedback to test-strategy-review | Runs, defects, new risks | Test Strategy Review baseline and regression update |
Do not paste three complete outputs into one large prompt. Give Test Strategy Review a structured summary and accessible source artifacts. It saves context and makes defects traceable.
Team gates
| Gate | Check | Failure action |
|---|---|---|
| test-strategy-review input | Version, environment, owner, accessible sources | Stop Test Strategy Review and list gaps |
| test-strategy-review artifact | Material claims carry basis and status | Return Test Strategy Review for evidence |
| test-strategy-review execution | Command, exit status, report are reproducible | Classify infrastructure or test failure |
| test-strategy-review decision | Residual risks have accepter and date | Do not enter the next stage |
Review Test Strategy Review adoption, human edit rate, unsupported claims, and failure-to-diagnosis time each sprint. Record a baseline for several cycles before setting targets.
Keep the original text and evidence in the review
Quote a location before describing the problem. Separate contract gaps, wording defects, and personal preference. Findings related to Input contract should explain the behavioral drift they can cause. Recheck behavior after the edit.
Install and invoke
Install the individual Skill. The series overview carries the longer installation explanation.
npx skills add https://github.com/naodeng/awesome-qa-skills/tree/main/skills/en/testing-types/test-strategy-review -g -a codex -yInvoke it with “Use the test-strategy-review Skill,” then attach the real artifacts.
Two practical questions
Must every review finding be accepted?
No. Use severity and contract impact. A preference can be declined if the choice is recorded.
Does shorter prose mean a better Skill?
No. Triggers, inputs, outputs, and risk boundaries still need to survive the edit.
When is human review mandatory?
Require an accountable person for scope trade-offs, risk acceptance, release decisions, and source conflicts.
What should be archived?
Keep the input version, Skill output, human edits, and final evidence so the conclusion can be reconstructed.
Run Test Strategy Review against one real artifact and keep the input, output, and review notes. The fragments here establish structure; project evidence must still come from the project.