Testland
Browse all skills & agents

interview-question-author

Build-an-X workflow that produces a QA-role-specific interview question bank - takes a role description (manual QA / SDET / automation engineer / test lead / quality manager) plus competency model and emits a structured question bank covering technical, behavioral (STAR-format), scenario-based, and system-design dimensions, classified by ISTQB-canonical competency areas and Bloom's taxonomy difficulty levels. This produces the questions only - not the scoring rubric and not the gold-standard answer guide. Use as the first artifact a hiring manager produces when opening a QA / test role, before scheduling the first interview.

Install with skills.sh (any agent)

npx skills add testland/qa --skill interview-question-author
View source

interview-question-author

Overview

Hiring for QA roles is calibration-heavy: the same question scored by two interviewers without a rubric produces high noise (well-documented in structured-interview research (opens in new window)). The remedy is a structured interview - same questions, same order, same scoring rubric across candidates. This skill produces the questions half of that pair; the scoring rubric and the calibration guide are separate artifacts.

The skill is QA-specific by design. Generic interview-question generators exist in the wider AI tooling space; the differentiation here is (a) ISTQB-aligned competency framing, (b) role-specific question depth (manual QA vs SDET vs test lead require different technical / behavioral mixes), (c) STAR-format anchoring on behavioral questions per the canonical STAR method (opens in new window), and (d) a structured output ready to drop into a hiring loop.

When to use

  • A new QA / SDET / test-lead / quality-manager req has been opened and the team needs a question bank before scheduling interviews.
  • An existing question bank is stale and the team is recalibrating after a hiring round.
  • A team is moving from unstructured interviews to structured ones (the validity uplift is the published reason - see Levashina et al. 2014, Personnel Psychology (opens in new window)).

Do not use this skill to:

  • Produce the scoring rubric - that is hiring-rubric-author.
  • Produce the calibration guide / gold-standard answers - that is interviewer-calibration-guide-author.
  • Author non-QA-role questions (general engineering, product, design). The skill is QA-scoped.

Step 1 - Capture the role inputs

Required inputs:

InputNotes
Role titleOne of: manual-qa-engineer, qa-automation-engineer, sdet, test-lead, quality-manager. Each has different default depth weights (Step 3).
SeniorityOne of: junior, mid, senior, staff+. Drives Bloom's-taxonomy difficulty mix in Step 4.
Domain contextThe product area / regulated industry (e.g., "fintech payments", "healthcare EHR", "consumer mobile") - drives scenario-based questions.
Required competenciesOptional; if absent, the skill defaults to ISTQB Foundation Level chapters relevant to the role (test design, test management, test process, defect management, tools).
Forbidden topicsOptional; topics already covered elsewhere in the loop or out-of-scope for legal / compliance reasons.

If the role title is not one of the five recognised QA roles, the skill halts with UNRECOGNISED_ROLE: supply a role from the recognised list, or run with role=qa-generic to use a flat default mix.

Step 2 - Allocate question slots

A typical 60-minute interview holds 6 - 8 questions. The skill defaults to a six-question shape. The mix shifts per role:

RoleTechnical depthBehavioral (STAR)Scenario-basedSystem / framework design
manual-qa-engineer2220
qa-automation-engineer3111
sdet2112
test-lead1311
quality-manager0411

The mix is configurable; the table is the default. Behavioral count grows with seniority and people-leadership scope per the structured-interview research; technical depth grows with hands-on coding scope.

Step 3 - Author per-slot questions

For each slot, the skill emits one question with the metadata reviewers need:

### Q3 - Behavioral (STAR) | Senior | Bloom: K3 (Apply)

**Question:** Tell me about a release where you caught a critical defect late - after the test cycle but before production. Walk me through the situation, what your role was, what you did, and what the team learned.

**ISTQB competency:** Defect management (defect → failure distinction, escape-defect lifecycle).
**STAR cues:** Listen for: (S) the release context, (T) the candidate's specific responsibility, (A) the diagnostic and communication actions taken, (R) measurable outcomes + retro learnings.
**Time budget:** 8 min.
**Follow-up probes** (use only if the answer is shallow):
- "Was the defect found through automated tests, manual exploration, or a customer report?"
- "What changed in your team's process after this incident?"
- "How did you handle the stakeholder communication?"

Each question carries:

  • Type: technical / behavioral / scenario / system-design.
  • Seniority anchor: which level the question is calibrated for; senior questions remain useful at staff+ but with deeper probes.
  • Bloom's level (K1 - K4): K1 (remember) for fundamentals, K2 (understand) for explanation, K3 (apply) for situational execution, K4 (analyse) for synthesis. Bloom's levels are used by ISTQB to anchor question difficulty across the Foundation Level syllabus.
  • ISTQB competency the question maps to (cite by stable ID; the ISTQB Foundation Level v4.0 syllabus (opens in new window) is the canonical competency reference, though its specific URL drift means cite by syllabus version).
  • STAR cues (for behavioral questions only) - per the STAR method (opens in new window), the interviewer listens for all four components; missing components prompt follow-up probes.
  • Time budget in minutes.
  • Follow-up probes - pre-authored so different interviewers don't drift into ad-hoc probing (the dominant source of interview noise per structured-interview research).

Step 4 - Tune the difficulty distribution

Bloom's taxonomy mix per seniority (default; configurable):

SeniorityK1K2K3K4
junior30%40%25%5%
mid15%35%35%15%
senior5%25%40%30%
staff+0%15%35%50%

The skill flags questions whose Bloom's level is too far from the role's centre of gravity (e.g., a K1 fundamental question for a staff+ candidate is wasted slot).

Step 5 - Emit the bank

The output is a single markdown document with:

  1. Header: role, seniority, domain, total slots, mix summary.
  2. Question slots 1 - N: per the format in Step 3.
  3. Reading list for the candidate (optional): canonical references the candidate can prepare against - ISTQB Foundation Level syllabus, the team's testing handbook, etc. Always optional; avoid if the role advertises "no prep needed".
  4. Hand-off block:
## HAND-OFF - required next steps

1. Pair with `hiring-rubric-author` to produce the per-question scoring rubric. The rubric and the questions must travel together; otherwise the loop reverts to unstructured.
2. Pair with `interviewer-calibration-guide-author` after the rubric exists; the calibration guide is what brings interviewer scoring into agreement.
3. Lock the question bank at the start of the hiring round; if the bank changes mid-round, every prior candidate's score is no longer comparable.

Anti-patterns

Anti-patternWhy it failsFix
Generic behavioral questions ("Tell me about a time you faced a challenge")Drains the slot; the answer is unscorable because the question lacks specificity.Behavioral questions must name the QA-specific context (release, defect, framework, regulation).
Asking the same question across all seniority levelsThe signal is wasted - a K1 fundamentals question reveals nothing about a staff+ candidate.Step 4 difficulty tuning per seniority.
Including a question already covered in the take-home / coding screenDouble-coverage at the cost of a slot.The forbidden topics input excludes those areas.
Including "puzzle" questions ("estimate the number of QA engineers in your city")Validity is documented to be near zero per structured-interview meta-analyses; the question signals interviewer preference, not candidate competence.The skill refuses to emit Fermi / puzzle questions. Cite structured-interview research (opens in new window) as the basis.
Behavioural questions without STAR cues for the listenerDifferent interviewers listen for different things; scoring drifts.Step 3 STAR cues are mandatory for behavioural questions.
Letting interviewers free-form their own follow-upsThe dominant source of interview noise.Step 3 pre-authored follow-up probes.
Authoring the question bank without the rubricHalf a structured interview - questions without scoring still drift.Hand-off block insists on hiring-rubric-author next.

Limitations

  • The bank is not a substitute for technical screening. A take-home or coding round is still recommended for SDET / automation roles where hands-on code is load-bearing. The skill produces interview questions, not coding exercises.
  • STAR cues are heuristics, not auto-scoring. The interviewer still has to listen and score. The cue list reduces variance but does not eliminate it.
  • Bloom's levels are the ISTQB-canonical proxy, not a perfect difficulty measure. A K3 question can be more or less difficult than another K3 depending on the topic. Use the level as a coarse mix knob, not a fine-grained difficulty score.
  • Locale / language localisation is the team's responsibility. Behavioral questions translated literally can lose nuance; the skill emits English-language defaults.
  • Legal compliance varies by jurisdiction. Some questions (age, family, health) are illegal in some jurisdictions and merely poor practice in others. The skill includes a default forbidden-topics list (age, family status, religion, sexual orientation, disability, national origin, citizenship except where role-required) but the hiring team is responsible for jurisdiction-specific compliance - see legal-compliance-checker ecosystem.

Hand-off targets

  • Score the questions consistentlyhiring-rubric-author.
  • Calibrate interviewersinterviewer-calibration-guide-author.
  • Compliance review of the question set → the team's legal / HR review (flagged here so the hiring manager remembers).

References

  • ISTQB Certified Tester Foundation Level v4.0 syllabus - competency areas (test design, test management, test process, defect management, tools); cite by stable syllabus version (v4.0, 2023): https://www.istqb.org/certifications/certified-tester-foundation-level
  • ISTQB glossary - defect, defect-density, escaped-defect, test design technique (the canonical competency vocabulary): https://glossary.istqb.org/
  • STAR behavioral interviewing method - Situation / Task / Action / Result framework: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situation,_task,_action,_result
  • Structured interview research - Levashina et al. 2014 (Personnel Psychology (opens in new window)) on the validity uplift from structured employment interviews; the methodological basis for this skill's "same questions, same order, same scoring" defaults.
  • Bloom's taxonomy - K1 remember / K2 understand / K3 apply / K4 analyse - ISTQB-adopted cognitive-difficulty levels: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom%27s_taxonomy
  • PractiTest 2026 State of Testing Report - hiring rubric / interview question generation cited as a high-adoption, low-risk AI use case for QA managers: https://www.practitest.com/state-of-testing/
  • hiring-rubric-author, interviewer-calibration-guide-author - sibling skills that complete the structured-interview triple.

Related skills

hiring-rubric-author

Build-an-X workflow that produces a per-role QA hiring rubric - takes a role description (manual QA / SDET / automation engineer / test lead / quality manager) plus the question bank from `interview-question-author` and emits a competency-anchored scoring rubric with 4-level behavioral anchors (no-hire / borderline / hire / strong-hire) per competency. This produces the scoring scaffold only - not the questions themselves, and not the gold-standard model answers that demonstrate each score level. Use after the question bank exists and before the first interview is scheduled - the rubric is what brings interviewer scoring into agreement.

interviewer-calibration-guide-author

Build-an-X workflow that produces an interviewer calibration guide for a QA hiring loop - takes the question bank and rubric (from sibling skills `interview-question-author` and `hiring-rubric-author`) plus 2-5 sample candidate transcripts/responses, and emits gold-standard model answers, common pitfalls, score-anchor examples per question, and a calibration-session script for the panel. Distinct from the question and rubric skills (which produce the questions and the scoring scaffold); this skill produces the **demonstration material** that brings two interviewers' scores into agreement. Use after the rubric exists and before the first real candidate - the calibration guide is what closes the inter-rater-reliability gap that the rubric alone cannot.

onboarding-plan-author

Build-an-X workflow that produces a 30-60-90 day onboarding plan for a newly hired QA engineer - takes seniority level (junior / mid / senior / lead) plus the team's hiring rubric and emits phase-gated ramp milestones, competency targets mapped to the rubric axes, mentor cadence, and success criteria per phase. This is the post-hire ramp artifact - it starts at offer acceptance, not during the interview loop. Use when a QA engineer has been hired and the hiring manager or team lead needs a structured first-90-days plan before the new hire's start date.

qa-jd-author

Build-an-X workflow that authors a QA job description for a given role and seniority - responsibilities drawn from the ISTQB CTFL v4.0 split between the testing role (test analysis, design, implementation, execution) and the test management role (planning, monitoring and control, completion), a must-have versus nice-to-have skills split, and the screening signals a recruiter can apply to applications. The competency vocabulary matches `hiring-rubric-author`, so the JD a candidate reads and the rubric they are scored on describe the same role. This is the artifact that opens the role and attracts applicants - not the interview questions, not the scoring rubric, and not the post-hire ramp plan. Use when opening a QA / SDET / automation / test-lead / quality-manager requisition, before anything is posted - the JD is the upstream-most artifact of the hiring chain.