project-delivery-perspective
About project-delivery-perspective
A skill for project delivery participants to organize schedules, capacity, dependencies, milestones, owners, and action status for supported test stages. It preserves sourced quality facts but makes no quality verdicts or changes to quality status.
Key features
- 01Support three specified test stages
- 02Record sourced delivery constraints
- 03Track actions and their status
- 04Preserve quality facts separately
- 05Flag missing information and coordination questions
Use cases
- 01Assess delivery feasibility for a test strategy
- 02Track dependencies and actions in a test review
- 03Coordinate delivery arrangements for a test report review
Install
Copy the command and run it in a terminal.
npx skills add https:/ / github.com/ naodeng/ awesome-qa-skills --skill project-delivery-perspectiveAfter installing, type/project-delivery-perspectivein Claude Code to confirm it loaded.
Bundled files
References and scripts installed along with SKILL.md.
agents/openai.yamlevals/eval.yamlevals/cases/basic-test-strategy-input.yamledge-no-sourced-delivery-input.yamledge-quality-fact-override.yamledge-unsupported-stage.yamlreview-test-report-review-sources.yamlreview-test-strategy-review-sources.yamlreview-test-strategy-sources.yamlprompts/test-report-review.mdtest-strategy-review.mdtest-strategy.mdDetails
From the project READMEProject Delivery Perspective (English)
Chinese version: See the corresponding Chinese skill.
When to use
- A supported quality stage needs attributable schedule, capacity, dependency, milestone, owner, or action-status input.
- Delivery participants need to surface constraints or track follow-up actions without changing quality facts.
Inputs
stage(required):test-strategy,test-strategy-review, ortest-report-review.- Supplied project-delivery facts: schedule, capacity, dependencies, milestones, owners, action status, and the source for each statement.
- Optional quality facts from their owning source, recorded only to preserve context and route follow-up.
Workflow
- Validate
stage. If it is missing or unsupported, return Not applicable, state that onlytest-strategy,test-strategy-review, andtest-report-revieware supported, and request a valid stage. Do not produce planning, action, or quality conclusions. - Load and follow exactly one Prompt from the table for a valid stage. Never combine stage Prompts.
- Record project constraints and actions only when their schedule, owner, status, or dependency source is supplied. Mark absent information as a gap; never infer dates, capacity, ownership, or status.
- Keep quality facts in a separate, source-attributed preservation section. Do not decide, rewrite, downgrade, close, pass, approve, or otherwise override defect, execution, evidence, quality, or release facts.
stage | Only prompt to load |
|---|---|
test-strategy | prompts/test-strategy.md |
test-strategy-review | prompts/test-strategy-review.md |
test-report-review | prompts/test-report-review.md |
Responsibilities and boundaries
- Focus on delivery feasibility inputs: schedule, capacity, dependencies, milestones, accountable owners, action status, escalation needs, and delivery risk caused by constraints.
- Preserve every project and quality statement with its supplied source. A stakeholder request is a request, not evidence that changes a fact.
- This Skill is not a QA, engineering, product, security, or release authority. It never produces a quality verdict or changes defect status, execution status, test results, evidence, quality status, or release approval.
Output contract
Unless returning Not applicable, output in this order: Summary, Project constraints, Action tracking, Preserved quality facts, Information gaps, Coordination questions, Next delivery actions, Confidence. For every factual item, include its source; place unverified requests under questions or actions, not facts.
Pre-delivery checklist
- The stage is one of the three supported values and exactly one Prompt was loaded
- Every schedule, capacity, dependency, milestone, owner, and status statement carries its supplied source
- Project constraints/actions are separate from preserved quality facts
- No defect, execution, evidence, quality, or release fact was changed or concluded
- Unknown ownership, dates, capacity, dependencies, and status are explicit gaps
Progressive disclosure
- After stage validation, read only the mapped file in
prompts/. - For evaluation or regression, use
evals/; never treat eval scenarios as project evidence.
Common pitfalls
- Do not turn deadline pressure into a claim that a defect is closed, testing passed, or release quality is acceptable.
- Do not present a requested fact change as a source-backed fact.
- Do not create a delivery plan from unprovided capacity, owners, dates, or dependencies.
Report provenance
Keep the selected stage, a stable source_id, and supplied version in the report header. If a source ID is absent, declare a temporary local locator; if version is absent, write unknown rather than inventing it. Each finding has a stable finding_id, its source/evidence locator and status. Each action links its finding and specifies the evidence that would close it; owner, date and action status stay unknown unless supplied. These are standalone report fields, not a dependency on another Skill.
Delivery requests, decisions and dates
Within Project constraints and Action tracking, separate requested outcomes, source-backed authorized decisions, and observed action status; keep quality evidence in Preserved quality facts. Preserve timezone offsets and date precision; normalize to UTC only when the offset is known, and flag ambiguous local time. A dependency delay updates only supported delivery implications. Missing owner/due date remains unknown; list assignment/clarification as the next coordination action. Report-review timing never authorizes release.