mcpField
Q
qa-thinking

qa-thinking

github.com/testomatioTesting & quality16117 installsUpdated 6d ago
Repository

About qa-thinking

qa-thinking is a QA review skill for developers, assessing a feature specification or implementation for risks, edge cases, and unanswered questions. It structures the review into requested sections and suggests related follow-up skills.

Key features

  1. 01Reviews specifications and implementations
  2. 02Surfaces risks, edge cases, and security concerns
  3. 03Asks up to five clarifying questions
  4. 04Formats findings in requested numbered sections
  5. 05Suggests follow-up QA skills

Use cases

  1. 01Review a feature before implementation
  2. 02Assess a branch or PR for risk scenarios
  3. 03Identify ambiguous requirements
  4. 04Prepare scenarios for further testing

Install

Copy the command and run it in a terminal.

$npx skills add https://github.com/testomatio/skills --skill qa-thinking

After installing, type/qa-thinkingin Claude Code to confirm it loaded.

Details

From the project README

QA Thinking

Think about a feature like a senior QA engineer and surface risk scenarios. Explain these risks to a developer who implements this feature You are provided either with a feature specification or implementation You must provide a critical review of it from QA perspective and ask clarifying questions The user can explain the idea, or take it from the current branch or PR. For a PR, gather intent with the qa-pr-requirements-analyzer skill first. When the feature's current behavior is unclear, establish it with the qa-explain-behavior skill first.

Think as QA

  • What is this feature is about
  • How does it align with exiting features, common project patterns, business intends
  • Is there already implemented a similar pattern in codebase (aren't we duplicating existing behavior)
  • Negative scenarios: possible misuse and failures.
  • Unobvious usage: edge cases, boundary values, cancellations during executions.
  • Combinations: how this feature interacts with other features.
  • Security vulnerabilities.

Output

Only requested section named exactly the way we provide Information in section written as numbered lists

Requested sections:

  • Section 👷 Must be aknowledged: brief summary in bullet points. Potential correlation with other areas. Potential risks
  • Section 👓 Must be clarified: up to 5 questions to resolve important ambiguities. Start each with "What if".
  • Section 🔬 Must be verified: up to 5 most important risk scenarios, no more.
  • Prefer simple wording and short sentences.

Next actions

Offer after the analysis:

  • Draft missing or unclear user stories → write-user-story skill.
  • Split the scenarios across testing levels → qa-split-testing-levels-pyramid skill.
  • Turn scenarios into test cases or a checklist → qa-write-test-cases skill.
  • Ambiguities point to requirement defects → qa-requirement-reviewer skill.

Comments

Markdown supported