QA quality perspective - QA Skill Library

Why this Skill

It turns this Skill's method into a quality input that can be executed, reviewed, and reused.

Use this Skill when its method fits the current quality task.

When to use

Use this Skill

Use this Skill when its method fits the current quality task.

Common pitfalls

No content is available for this Skill yet.

Input

Minimum Input

Validate `stage`. If it is missing or unsupported, return **Not applicable**, list supported stages, and request a valid `stage`; do not generate filler conclusions.

Recommended Input

Project goal
Test scope
Constraints

Optional Context

Relevant code or configuration
Historical results
Logs and metrics

Output

The output follows this Skill's method and makes facts, assumptions, risks, and next steps explicit.

Judge the output value before installing

01Validate stage. If it is missing or unsupported, return Not applicable, list supported stages, and request a valid stage; do not generate filler conclusions.
02Load and follow only the one Prompt mapped to that stage; never combine stage Prompts.
03Apply that Prompt's input threshold. When materials are insufficient, state facts, gaps, and needed evidence rather than inventing tests, defects, or quality conclusions.
04Produce a standalone QA quality report that separates facts, evidence, inference, missing evidence, and recommendations.

How It Works

01Validate stage. If it is missing or unsupported, return Not applicable, list supported stages, and request a valid stage; do not generate filler conclusions.
02Load and follow only the one Prompt mapped to that stage; never combine stage Prompts.
03Apply that Prompt's input threshold. When materials are insufficient, state facts, gaps, and needed evidence rather than inventing tests, defects, or quality conclusions.
04Produce a standalone QA quality report that separates facts, evidence, inference, missing evidence, and recommendations.

Install & Quick Start

Install command / SHELL

npx skills add \
  https://github.com/naodeng/awesome-qa-skills/tree/main/skills/en/testing-workflows/qa-quality-perspective
  -g

qa-quality-perspective.prompt

@skill qa-quality-perspective

Using the current project context, produce an actionable result following this Skill.

Additional context:
[Paste project context or requirement]

---
name: qa-quality-perspective
description: Use this skill when QA quality perspective is needed for requirements, strategy, review, test cases, or reports; triggers include QA quality perspective.
---

# QA quality perspective

## When to use

Use this at a requirements, strategy, review, test-case, or reporting stage when QA must assess testability, risk-based coverage, defect exposure, and quality risk from available evidence.

## Inputs

- `stage` (required): `requirements-analysis`, `test-strategy`, `test-strategy-review`, `code-review`, `test-case-writing`, `test-case-review`, `test-reporting`, or `test-report-review`.
- The declared stage inputs and any available requirement, code, test, defect, environment, or execution evidence.

## Workflow

1. Validate `stage`. If it is missing or unsupported, return **Not applicable**, list supported stages, and request a valid `stage`; do not generate filler conclusions.
2. Load and follow only the one Prompt mapped to that `stage`; never combine stage Prompts.
3. Apply that Prompt's input threshold. When materials are insufficient, state facts, gaps, and needed evidence rather than inventing tests, defects, or quality conclusions.
4. Produce a standalone QA quality report that separates facts, evidence, inference, missing evidence, and recommendations.

| `stage` | Only Prompt to load |
| --- | --- |
| `requirements-analysis` | `prompts/requirements-analysis.md` |
| `test-strategy` | `prompts/test-strategy.md` |
| `test-strategy-review` | `prompts/test-strategy-review.md` |
| `code-review` | `prompts/code-review.md` |
| `test-case-writing` | `prompts/test-case-writing.md` |
| `test-case-review` | `prompts/test-case-review.md` |
| `test-reporting` | `prompts/test-reporting.md` |
| `test-report-review` | `prompts/test-report-review.md` |

## QA responsibilities and boundary

- Focus on testability, risk-based coverage, observability, test evidence, defect risk, untested scope, and quality risk.
- Treat only supplied material as fact; label inference and missing evidence. Never invent product intent, acceptance rules, implementation behavior, execution records, defects, or metrics.
- QA does not decide product intent, certify code correctness, or approve release. Without execution evidence, it must never infer that testing ran, passed, or verified quality.

## Report contract

Unless returning **Not applicable**, include: **Summary, Facts, Evidence, Inference, Testability, Risk-based coverage, Defects and quality risks, Missing evidence, Recommendations and next steps, Confidence**. Tie every quality conclusion to evidence; classify risk as high, medium, or low with impact and uncertainty.

## Pre-delivery check

- [ ] The `stage` is valid and exactly one matching Prompt was loaded
- [ ] Facts, evidence, inference, missing evidence, and recommendations are distinct
- [ ] Testability and risk-based coverage are assessed, or the reason they cannot be assessed is explicit
- [ ] No missing product intent, implementation fact, or execution result is reported as fact
- [ ] Without execution evidence, the report does not imply or claim executed, passed, or verified testing

## On-demand loading and pitfalls

- Read only the mapped `prompts/` file after `stage` is valid. Read `evals/` for regression work, but never treat eval cases as project facts.
- Do not replace evidence with a generic risk checklist, or present test recommendations, static reading, or stakeholder opinion as a passing execution result.