Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Quality assurance expert for testing strategies and quality gates. Use when planning test coverage, setting up QA processes, or improving quality standards.
| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-17 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 138% | 0% |
| case-04 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 58% | 0% |
| case-06 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 29% | 0% |
| case-12 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 51% | 0% |
| case-18 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 2% | 0% |
Quality assurance specialist for developing comprehensive testing strategies and quality gates.
Activates when you:
Prioritize testing based on business impact, likelihood, change surface, and existing production evidence. The approaches below are examples to tailor, not universal requirements:
| Risk Level | Testing Approach | |------------|------------------| | Critical (Money, Security, Data) | Strong deterministic coverage; add resilience testing when the system supports it | | High (Core features) | Full E2E, integration, unit | | Medium (Secondary features) | Integration, unit | | Low (Edge features) | Unit tests only |
Choose the mix from system boundaries and failure cost. Do not enforce a fixed ratio when a repository's architecture or existing test strategy indicates a different shape.
| Level | Example Starting Mix | Focus | |-------|------------|-------| | E2E | 10% | Critical user journeys | | Integration | 30% | API interactions | | Unit | 60% | Business logic, utilities |
Treat this table as an illustration only. Derive the actual portfolio from the repository's architecture, risk profile, SLOs, and existing quality gates.
bash- Lint: npm run lint - Format check: npm run format:check - Type check: npm run type-check - Unit tests: npm run test:unit
bash- All tests: npm test - Coverage threshold: use the repository gate or agree a risk-based target - Security scan: npm audit - License check: npm run check:licenses
bash- Full test suite: npm run test:all - E2E tests: npm run test:e2e - Performance tests: npm run test:perf - Security audit: npm audit --audit-level high
Purpose: Verify features work as specified
Performance
Security
Compatibility
markdown# Test Plan: [Feature Name] ## Overview [Feature description] ## Scope [In scope / Out of scope] ## Test Cases ### Functional - [ ] TC001: [Description] - [ ] TC002: [Description] ### Integration - [ ] TC101: [Description] ### E2E - [ ] TC201: [Description] ## Test Data [Required test data] ## Environment [Test environment setup] ## Schedule [Testing timeline] ## Exit Criteria [Definition of done]
Use existing project gates first. If none exist, establish a baseline and agree targets with the owner; the values below are illustrative examples, not default acceptance criteria.
markdown## Bug Summary [One-line summary] ## Severity Critical / High / Medium / Low ## Steps to Reproduce 1. 2. 3. ## Expected Behavior [What should happen] ## Actual Behavior [What actually happens] ## Environment - OS: - Browser: - Version: ## Attachments [Screenshots, logs, etc.]
Generate test plan:
bashpython3 scripts/generate_test_plan.py --name <feature> --output docs/test-plan.md
Analyze test coverage:
bashpython3 scripts/coverage_analysis.py --name <service-name> --output coverage-analysis.md
references/strategy.md - Testing strategiesreferences/gates.md - Quality gate definitionsreferences/metrics.md - QA metrics and KPIs| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-17 | fail→pass | 12,357 | 21,650 | +75% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,677 | 3,986 | +138% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | pass→pass | 16,952 | 19,157 | +13% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,331 | 3,255 | +40% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | fail→fail | 22,617 | 25,798 | +14% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,813 | 4,223 | +50% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | pass→pass | 22,402 | 25,395 | +13% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,507 | 4,587 | +83% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-01 | fail→fail | 53,618 | 22,197 | -59% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,311 | 4,425 | +34% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | 29,018 | 23,232 | -20% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,218 | 4,119 | +28% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | fail→pass | 16,951 | 13,387 | -21% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,685 | 2,654 | +58% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→pass | 24,639 | 21,643 | -12% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,011 | 3,761 | +25% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | fail→pass | 20,242 | 13,456 | -34% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,160 | 2,793 | +29% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | fail→fail | 36,113 | 20,759 | -43% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,681 | 3,937 | +47% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | fail→fail | 22,174 | 21,016 | -5% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,897 | 3,604 | +24% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | pass→pass | 16,355 | 13,899 | -15% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,200 | 3,176 | +44% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | fail→pass | 20,053 | 16,635 | -17% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,082 | 3,150 | +51% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | pass→pass | 22,070 | 18,067 | -18% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,376 | 3,325 | +40% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | pass→pass | 19,668 | 13,289 | -32% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,996 | 3,032 | +52% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | pass→pass | 18,860 | 12,818 | -32% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,821 | 3,280 | +80% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | pass→pass | 10,316 | 15,741 | +53% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,643 | 2,663 | +62% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | fail→pass | 8,262 | 7,089 | -14% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,567 | 1,598 | +2% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | fail→pass | 13,870 | 7,079 | -49% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,450 | 1,598 | +10% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | pass→pass | 9,466 | 10,499 | +11% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 826 | 2,230 | +170% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 3,077 | 12,451 | +305% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 492 | 2,200 | +347% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 21,515 | 14,956 | -30% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,469 | 3,236 | +31% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +27 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
| Model | Method | Date | Lift |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemini-3.6-flash | verified | 7/24/2026 | +45% |
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.