Skip to content
Development
Skill

/app-user-story-qa

End-to-end app feature inventory and user-story testing workflow with a canonical tracker. Use when the user asks to audit every feature, derive expected behavior from code, test user journeys, or explicitly fix and retest documented UX or logistical defects.

From plugin
majiayu000-spellbook
277104 skills7 agents2 commands
Install
$ npx -y skills add majiayu000/spellbook --skill app-user-story-qa --agent claude-code

How it fires

How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.

  • Fires itselfAuto-invocation. Claude auto-loads it when your prompt matches the work.Auto-invocation is when the right skill fires by itself at the right moment, driven by a FLOW.md router and a hook, instead of you invoking it by name. It is the difference between a skill being installed and a skill actually getting used.Read the full definition →
  • You can call itInvoke it directly when you want it.
  • Slash command/app-user-story-qa

Context preview

The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.

End-to-end app feature inventory and user-story testing workflow with a canonical tracker. Use when the user asks to audit every feature, derive expected behavior from code, test user journeys, or explicitly fix and retest documented UX or logistical defects.

SKILL.md

app-user-story-qa.SKILL.md
name: app-user-story-qa
description: "End-to-end app feature inventory and user-story testing workflow with a canonical tracker. Use when the user asks to audit every feature, derive expected behavior from code, test user journeys, or explicitly fix and retest documented UX or logistical defects."

App User Story QA

Purpose

Use this skill to turn a broad "test every feature in this app" request into a controlled loop with one source of truth. Anchor every feature to code, track expected behavior in a canonical spreadsheet, run tests against each user story, and classify failures. Apply fixes only when the current request explicitly authorizes them.

Route

Use `plan_first` for most runs. Switch to `clarify_first` only when the app boundary, writable checkout, production risk, or acceptance criteria are unclear enough that a wrong assumption would waste substantial work.

Before editing:

1. Run a repo state snapshot: current path, branch, latest remote, dirty files, open PRs when relevant. 2. If the checkout is dirty or user work is present, first decide which state the user asked to test. Preserve current user work in the isolated test worktree when the request targets the working tree; use a clean base only when the user asked for the base branch. 3. Read applicable repo instructions such as `AGENTS.md`, `README`, architecture docs, and feature entrypoints. 4. Search for existing QA trackers before creating a new one. 5. Define the app boundary by user-facing surfaces, not internal helper functions.

Operating Contract

Select one mode before editing production code:

  • `report_only` is the default for audit, inventory, test, diagnose, or tracker requests. It may create or update the requested canonical tracker and run tests, but it must not change product behavior.
  • `apply_fixes` requires the current user request to explicitly ask for fixes. It covers only defects already reproduced and classified within the agreed app boundary. Earlier approval and a generic request to "test everything" do not authorize fixes.

If the mode is ambiguous, use `report_only` and record proposed fixes in the tracker.

Direct actions:

  • Inventory local code and docs, create or update the single canonical tracker, run local tests, and document failures.
  • In `apply_fixes` only, fix narrow in-scope logistical or UX defects and add focused coverage when user-observable behavior changes.

Escalate before:

  • Testing production systems, using paid external services, changing credentials or deployment state, deleting user data, or broadening the app boundary beyond the user's request.
  • Editing shared test infrastructure, weakening assertions, or changing product requirements instead of the implementation.

Evidence-backed pushback:

  • Challenge requests to skip the tracker, mark untested rows as passed, or fix symptoms without reproducing the failure. Cite the tracker row, command output, code anchor, or missing environment precondition.

Feedback loop:

  • Promote repeated setup failures, brittle manual paths, or recurring test gaps into tracker notes, scripts, docs, or follow-up issues instead of leaving them only in chat.

Gotchas

  • Do not create scattered notes or duplicate trackers. One canonical tracker is the audit log.
  • Do not invent expected behavior from product hopes. Expected behavior comes from current code, docs, and visible user surfaces.
  • Do not mark a feature passed from stale output. Fresh evidence from the current session is required.
  • Do not "fix" environment blockers unless the user asked for environment repair.
  • Do not infer fix authorization from words such as "audit", "test", "check", or "create a tracker". Keep those runs in `report_only`.

Canonical Tracker

Create or update exactly one tracker. Prefer a real spreadsheet when the runtime supports it; otherwise use a CSV and treat it as the canonical spreadsheet. Do not scatter status across side reports.

Use these columns:

Feature ID,Surface,Feature / capability,User story,Expected behavior based on code,Code anchors,Initial test approach,Initial test command or route,Status,Test result,Errors,Fix status,Retest result,Notes

Rules:

  • Assign stable IDs such as `F001`, `F002`.
  • Require at least one code anchor per row. A row without an anchor is not complete.
  • Write expected behavior from current code and docs, not from aspirational specs.
  • Keep the tracker parseable: validate CSV/spreadsheet row widths after edits.
  • Update the tracker during the loop, not only at the end.

Status Values

Use a small, consistent status set:

  • `Not Tested`
  • `Passed`
  • `Failed - Product`
  • `Failed - UX`
  • `Failed - Logistical`
  • `Failed - Test Infra`
  • `Blocked - Env`
  • `Fixed`
  • `Passed after fix`

Use `Failed - Logistical` for repo-owned setup, script, port, packaging, or local workflow defects that block a valid user path. Use `Blocked - Env` for local machine issues such as missing credentials, occupied services outside the repo, stale PATH binaries, or unavailable optional runtimes. Do not "fix" the user's environment unless they explicitly ask.

Defect Taxonomy

Classify every failure before fixing:

  • `Product`: implemented behavior violates the user story or loses data.
  • `UX`: behavior works but the user path is confusing, brittle, or poorly surfaced.
  • `Logistical`: scripts, ports, setup, packaging, or local workflow make valid behavior hard to exercise.
  • `Test Infra`: the test itself is flaky, racy, or asserts the wrong contract.
  • `Env`: external setup blocks execution and is not a repo defect.

Fix only defects that are in scope for the task. Record out-of-scope defects in the tracker with clear rationale.

Workflow

1. Inventory

Map all user-visible surfaces first:

  • CLI commands and flags
  • Web or desktop UI routes
  • API endpoints
  • background jobs or hooks that affect users
  • plugin, package, install, or release surfaces
  • import/export, backup, migration, and governance flows
Read more
Ships withmajiayu000-spellbook

Cross-runtime skills for Claude Code, Codex, and multi-agent workflows.

Get the whole plugin

Other skills on majiayu000-spellbook.

idea-analogist
Skill

idea-analogist

想法群聊室 — 类比者角色。被 idea-team 主编排器调用,或用户单独说"类比一下"、"别的行业有没有"、"yes-and 扩展"、"X 让你想到什么"、"跨界启示"时触发。**专门做跨界类比 + yes-and 扩展——不评判、不挑刺、不要求事实证据**。Do NOT use when 用户要数据(用…

idea-devils-advocate
Skill

idea-devils-advocate

想法群聊室 — 反方角色。被 idea-team 主编排器调用,或用户单独说"反方意见"、"挑这个想法的刺"、"为什么会失败"、"找漏洞 / 反例"、"devil's advocate"时触发。**专门挑漏洞、找隐藏假设、给反例——不安慰、不"也许可以这样"、不全盘否定**。Do NOT use when…

idea-research
Skill

idea-research

想法群聊室 — 调研员角色。被 idea-team 主编排器调用,或用户单独说"调研一下 X"、"X 的现状/竞品/数据"、"找 2026 数据"、"事实底"时触发。**用 WebSearch 拉真实 2026 数据、列竞品、引来源——只给事实,不评判,不建议**。Do NOT use when…

idea-team
Skill

idea-team

想法群聊室主持人 — 把一句话想法丢给多角色 AI 团队(调研员/反方/类比者)做查漏补缺。每个角色有自己的 voice,他们互相 @ 接话;你随时插话。**这是创意扩展工具,不打分、不否决、不堵路**。Use when 用户说"组个团队聊一下"、"开会讨论这个想法"、"找几个角度看看"、"群聊一下 X"、"team…

idea-to-product
Skill

idea-to-product

端到端产品教练 — 把一句话想法走到 PRD + 可点击 HTML 原型。会顶嘴、强制砍功能、用 Nielsen + Norman 做友好性硬检。Use when user 说"我有一个想法"、"想做一个产品"、"做 MVP"、"写 PRD"、"做用户友好的产品",或调用插件命令…