Testland
Browse all skills & agents

fcc-cuts-vids-heuristic

Pure-reference catalog of Michael Kelly's FCC CUTS VIDS touring heuristic (2005): eleven tours - Feature, Complexity, Claims, Configuration, User, Testability, Scenario, Variability, Interoperability, Data, Structure - each a reconnaissance sweep that builds familiarity with an unfamiliar application. Use when onboarding onto a product or opening a first session on an unknown area, before a charter is scoped. Distinct from exploratory-tours-reference (Whittaker's seven tours, which frame a bug-hunting mission on a product the tester already knows), sfdpot-exploratory-heuristic (what to vary), hiccupps-f-heuristic (oracles), and crusspic-stmpl-heuristic (quality criteria).

Install with skills.sh (any agent)

npx skills add testland/qa --skill fcc-cuts-vids-heuristic
View source

fcc-cuts-vids-heuristic

Overview

FCC CUTS VIDS is Michael Kelly's touring heuristic, published on his blog on 20 September 2005. It names eleven tours, each a short reconnaissance pass over an application with one question in mind. Kelly introduced it as a companion to his test-reporting heuristic, writing "I think I will need something similar for application touring. Here is my attempt: FCC CUTS VIDS" (michaeldkelly.com (opens in new window)).

The tours answer what does this product even consist of - they are aimed at a tester who does not yet know the application. That is the axis that separates them from the seven tours in exploratory-tours-reference, which come from Whittaker's Exploratory Software Testing (2009) and frame a themed bug hunt on a product the tester already understands. Kelly's tours precede that work by four years and are used earlier in the lifecycle: recon first, mission after.

This skill is a pure reference consumed by testers building familiarity with a new product or a newly inherited area.

When to use

  • Onboarding onto an unfamiliar product, before any charter is written.
  • Inheriting an area nobody on the team has tested recently.
  • Opening a first session on a feature whose shape is unknown, to decide what is worth chartering at all.
  • Filling a gap mid-session when the tester realises they cannot answer a basic question about the system.

Do not reach for this once the product is well understood; at that point a themed mission from exploratory-tours-reference is the better tool.

How to use

  1. Pick a target. One application, or one area of it, in a sentence.
  2. Run a subset of tours, not all eleven. Each is a short pass with one question. Three or four chosen for the unknowns that actually matter beat a mechanical sweep through the full list.
  3. Take notes per tour so the pass produces a record, not just a feeling of familiarity.
  4. Convert the gaps into charters. A tour that raises more questions than it answers has found the area worth a session. Hand those to session-based-test-management-reference to charter and time-box.

The eleven tours

Each description below is Kelly's own wording. Full prompts and worked examples: references/tours-catalog.md.

GroupTourKelly's description
FCCF - Feature"Move through the application and get familiar with all the controls and features you come across."
C - Complexity"Find the five most complex things about the application."
C - Claims"Find all the information in the product that tells you what the product does."
CUTSC - Configuration"Attempt to find all the ways you can change settings in the product in a way that the application retains those settings."
U - User"Imagine five users for the product and the information they would want from the product or the major features they would be interested in."
T - Testability"Find all the features you can use as testability features and/or identify tools you have available that you can use to help in your testing."
S - Scenario"Imagine five realistic scenarios for how the users identified in the user tour would use this product."
VIDSV - Variability"Look for things you can change in the application - and then you try to change them."
I - Interoperability"What does this application interact with?"
D - Data"Identify the major data elements of the application."
S - Structure"Find everything you can about what comprises the physical product (code, interfaces, hardware, files, etc...)."

The User and Scenario tours are ordered: Scenario builds on the personas the User tour produced, so run User first.

Anti-patterns

Anti-patternWhy it failsDo instead
Running all eleven tours on every productThe heuristic is a menu, not a checklist; eleven shallow passes crowd out one useful onePick the tours that target what is actually unknown
Treating a tour as a test passA tour builds familiarity; it is not coverage and finds bugs only incidentallyCharter a session for the risks the tour surfaced
Confusing these with Whittaker's toursDifferent author, different set, different lifecycle stageKelly's eleven for recon, exploratory-tours-reference for themed missions
Attributing the mnemonic to James BachIt is Kelly's, from his own blogCite michaeldkelly.com
Touring without notesThe familiarity evaporates and the next tester starts overRecord findings per tour so gaps become charters

Limitations

  • The tours are a learning aid. They do not establish coverage, and a product that has been toured is not a product that has been tested.
  • Kelly's original post gives one sentence per tour and no worked example; the prompts in the catalog reference are elaboration, not Kelly's text, and are marked as such.
  • The set is from 2005 and predates mobile, cloud, and API-first products. The Interoperability and Structure tours carry most of the weight for those, but the list has no tour aimed squarely at, say, a third-party identity provider.

References

FCC CUTS VIDS - the eleven tours in full

View source (opens in new window)

FCC CUTS VIDS - the eleven tours in full

Michael Kelly's touring heuristic, published 20 September 2005 on michaeldkelly.com (opens in new window).

Each tour below quotes Kelly's own one-line description verbatim. The prompts and worked example under each are elaboration for this catalog, not Kelly's text.

Running example throughout: a self-serve expense-reporting web app the tester has never opened before.

FCC - the product shape

F - Feature tour

"Move through the application and get familiar with all the controls and features you come across."

Prompts

  • What is on every screen reachable without special permissions?
  • Which controls are visible but disabled, and under what condition do they enable?
  • What exists in menus that has no obvious entry point in the UI?

Worked example. Clicking every nav item surfaces a "Recurring expenses" screen that appears in no onboarding material. Nobody on the team mentions it. That absence is the finding.

C - Complexity tour

"Find the five most complex things about the application."

Prompts

  • Which screen has the most fields, states, or conditional logic?
  • Where does the product ask the user to make the hardest decision?
  • What would be hardest to explain to a new colleague?

Worked example. The five: multi-currency conversion, approval-chain routing, receipt OCR, the mileage calculator, and per-country tax rules. Complexity concentrates risk, so this list is usually the first draft of a charter backlog.

C - Claims tour

"Find all the information in the product that tells you what the product does."

Prompts

  • What do the marketing pages, in-product tooltips, help centre, and release notes promise?
  • Where do two of those sources disagree?
  • What does the product claim about limits, formats, or timing?

Worked example. The pricing page says receipts are processed "instantly"; the in-app tooltip says "within a few minutes". Both are claims, and they conflict. That conflict is testable, and it is also material for hiccupps-f-heuristic, where Claims is one of the oracles.

CUTS - the usage shape

C - Configuration tour

"Attempt to find all the ways you can change settings in the product in a way that the application retains those settings."

Prompts

  • What is settable per user, per team, and per organisation?
  • Which settings survive logout, and which silently reset?
  • What is configurable only by an administrator or only by support?

Worked example. The default currency is settable per user, but resets to the org default after a session expires. Persistence is the part of the tour that matters: a setting that does not stick is a different product than the one the settings screen advertises.

U - User tour

"Imagine five users for the product and the information they would want from the product or the major features they would be interested in."

Prompts

  • Who are five distinct people who touch this, and what does each want from it?
  • Which of them never log in but are affected by it anyway?
  • Whose needs conflict?

Worked example. A field engineer filing from a phone, a manager approving in bulk, a finance analyst exporting for reconciliation, an auditor reading historical records, and an admin configuring policy. The analyst and the auditor want opposite things from data retention.

Run this tour before the Scenario tour, which depends on its output.

T - Testability tour

"Find all the features you can use as testability features and/or identify tools you have available that you can use to help in your testing."

Prompts

  • What logs, debug views, health endpoints, or admin panels exist?
  • Can state be set up directly, or only through the UI?
  • What is available for generating or resetting data?

Worked example. An admin "impersonate user" action removes the need to hold five sets of credentials, and a CSV import can seed a hundred expenses in one step. Both cut session setup time, which is the constraint session-based-test-management-reference cares about.

S - Scenario tour

"Imagine five realistic scenarios for how the users identified in the user tour would use this product."

Prompts

  • What does each persona from the User tour do end to end, on a normal day?
  • Which scenario crosses the most features?
  • What does the unhappy version of each scenario look like?

Worked example. The field engineer photographs a receipt in a basement with no signal, files it later, and the manager approves it from an email link while travelling. That scenario crosses offline capture, sync, deep linking, and approval - four areas one tour surfaced together.

VIDS - the data and system shape

V - Variability tour

"Look for things you can change in the application - and then you try to change them."

Prompts

  • Which fields accept free input, and what do they accept?
  • What can be reordered, renamed, deleted, or bulk-edited?
  • What changes state as a side effect of changing something else?

Worked example. An expense category can be renamed after reports referencing it are submitted. Whether historical reports show the old or new name is a real question the tour raises but does not answer.

Note the overlap with sfdpot-exploratory-heuristic: variability is about finding what can change, SFDPOT is about systematically varying it once found.

I - Interoperability tour

"What does this application interact with?"

Prompts

  • What does it authenticate against, import from, export to, or notify?
  • Which integrations are optional, and what breaks when one is off?
  • What talks to it that the team does not own?

Worked example. Single sign-on, a corporate card feed, an accounting export, and an email notification service. The card feed is the one nobody on the team controls, which makes it the first candidate for contract-level attention.

D - Data tour

"Identify the major data elements of the application."

Prompts

  • What are the main entities, and how do they relate?
  • Which fields are required, unique, or bounded?
  • What data outlives the user who created it?

Worked example. Expense, Report, Approval, Policy, User. An Approval references a User who may later be deactivated, which raises the question of what an audit view shows for a departed employee.

S - Structure tour

"Find everything you can about what comprises the physical product (code, interfaces, hardware, files, etc...)."

Prompts

  • What are the deployable pieces, and where do they run?
  • What file formats, APIs, and storage does it own?
  • What is the client, and what is the server?

Worked example. A React front end, a REST API, a background OCR worker, object storage for receipt images, and a nightly export job. The worker and the export job have no UI, so nothing in the Feature tour would have found them.

Turning a tour into a charter

A tour produces questions; a charter answers one. When a tour surfaces something worth pursuing, hand it to session-based-test-management-reference with a stated mission and a time box. The Complexity and Claims tours tend to generate the most charter-worthy material, because both surface places where the product's stated behaviour and its actual behaviour can diverge.

Related skills

bug-bash-facilitator

Builds a structured bug-bash session - pre-bash kit (charter, test-data prep, environment setup, sign-up sheet), in-bash structure (role rotation across cohorts, shared backlog board, real-time triage), scoring rubric (severity weighting, novelty bonus), and a post-bash same-day wrap-up authored by the facilitator (not a standalone debrief: for post-session writeups without a live bash, use manual-test-debrief). Use when a team needs a coordinated multi-tester sweep before a release or after a major change - converts an ad-hoc "everyone test for an hour" into a recorded, comparable session with deliverables.

crusspic-stmpl-heuristic

Pure-reference catalog of James Bach's CRUSSPIC STMPL heuristic - thirteen quality criteria (quality attributes / non-functional requirements) a tester can evaluate a system against. CRUSSPIC: Capability, Reliability, Usability, Security, Scalability, Performance, Installability, Compatibility. STMPL: Supportability, Testability, Maintainability, Portability, Localizability. Use when checking a product's quality attributes or non-functional requirements, or picking which quality characteristics a test session evaluates - a checklist for judging product quality holistically; complementary to the ISO/IEC 25010 software product-quality model.

decision-table-test-design

Derives human-readable manual test cases from a business-rule spec via a decision table: identify conditions and actions, build the full 2^n-column matrix, collapse columns with irrelevant entries, strike infeasible combinations, then emit one test case per remaining column (each feasible column is one coverage item per ISTQB CTFL v4.0 section 4.2.3). A deep single-technique walkthrough rather than a broad multi-lens case matrix; the output is manual step/expected cases rather than parameterized test code, and it covers how cases are derived rather than how a case record is structured. Use when a spec's outcome depends on interacting conditions (pricing, eligibility, discounts, routing rules) rather than the boundaries of a single input.

exploratory-tours-reference

Pure-reference catalog of the seven exploratory testing tours from Whittaker's Exploratory Software Testing (2009): Feature, Money, Landmark, Intellectual, Bad-data, Configuration, and Garbage-collector's, each a themed mission with the signal it surfaces and a worked example. Use as the menu a charter author picks session themes from. Distinct from the mnemonic catalogs sfdpot-exploratory-heuristic (what to vary) and hiccupps-f-heuristic (oracles), and from session-based-test-management-reference, which manages the sessions.

hiccupps-f-heuristic

Pure-reference catalog of Michael Bolton's HICCUPPS-F oracle heuristic - the reference points a tester consults to decide 'is this a bug?': History, Image, Comparable products, Claims, Users' desires, Product (internal consistency), Purpose, Standards/statutes, plus Familiar problems. Use mid-session to test an observation against each oracle. For what to VARY use sfdpot-exploratory-heuristic, for touring an unfamiliar product use fcc-cuts-vids-heuristic, for quality criteria use crusspic-stmpl-heuristic.

manual-test-debrief

Session debrief template + tour-coverage tracker - captures the SBTM PROOF format (Past, Results, Obstacles, Outlook, Feelings) plus three-bucket time accounting (test design / setup / bug investigation), the tours applied + areas covered + areas skipped, and the per-session quality-of-attention signal. Output is the artifact a charter delivers into; the team aggregates debriefs across sessions to track what's been explored vs what's still uncharted. Use after every exploratory session - without the debrief, the session's findings disappear.

manual-test-script-author

Builds stakeholder-readable scripted manual test cases from a feature spec - emits either a step-table format (preconditions / steps / expected result / actual / pass-fail / notes) for spreadsheet review or a Gherkin Given/When/Then format for BDD-aware teams. Each script is self-contained (no implicit team knowledge), single-scenario (one happy + N edge per script), and includes the data setup the tester needs without being a developer. Use when a feature can't be (or shouldn't be) fully automated and a human tester needs an executable script - UAT, regression baselines, certification testing, exploratory follow-up scripts.

manual-testing-overview

Teaches human-driven testing end to end: when a predefined scripted test case is the right instrument versus a time-boxed exploratory session, how session-based test management works (charter with a stated mission, time box, session notes, debrief) with a worked charter and a filled-in session sheet, a decision rule for what to automate versus what to keep human, and what makes a manual bug report actionable (exact reproduction steps, observed versus expected, build and environment, evidence). Use when planning or running testing a person performs by hand, writing a charter for an exploratory session, deciding whether a check belongs in an automated suite or in a human session, or fixing bug reports that developers keep returning as not reproducible.

session-based-test-management-reference

Pure-reference catalog of Session-Based Test Management (SBTM) - the Bachs' framework for running exploratory testing as time-boxed sessions: the session (60-90 min), the charter (Explore X with Y to discover Z), the session-sheet structure, the TBS metrics, the cross-session dashboard, and the PROOF debrief. Use when authoring exploratory-testing charters, reviewing session sheets, or setting up time-boxed test sessions. Distinct from manual-test-debrief (the PROOF debrief template), exploratory-tours-reference (the session themes), and the heuristic catalog hiccupps-f-heuristic.

sfdpot-exploratory-heuristic

Pure-reference catalog of James Bach's SFDPOT heuristic - 'San Francisco Depot' - a 'you are here' framework that catalogues what a tester can vary in a system to find bugs. Six dimensions: Structure, Function, Data, Platform, Operations, Time. Use as a what-to-vary checklist during an exploratory session, complementing HICCUPPS-F (which catalogues what to compare against).

state-transition-test-design

Derives human-readable manual test cases from stateful behavior: identify states, events, transitions, and guard conditions, draw the state table including invalid (empty-cell) transitions, choose a coverage level (all states, valid transitions / 0-switch, transition pairs / 1-switch per Chow, all transitions including invalid ones), then derive one test case per coverage item as an event sequence with per-step expected states (ISTQB CTFL v4.0 section 4.2.4). A deep single-technique walkthrough rather than a broad multi-lens case matrix; the output is manual step/expected cases rather than parameterized test code, and it covers how cases are derived rather than how a case record is structured. Use for lifecycle entities (accounts, orders, subscriptions), workflows, and UI wizards where the response to an event depends on the current state.

test-execution-checklist

Converts a regression suite (or test plan) into an executable manual checklist for cases when automation isn't viable - a release-day smoke checklist, a post-incident verification list, or a periodic compliance check. Outputs a per-TC checkbox list with the minimal preconditions, the action, and a one-line "what to look for" - short enough to fit on one page per major flow. Use when the team needs a focused human-runnable list (not full step-tables), e.g., for production smoke after deploy or for the on-call rotation's quick verification.

uat-script-author

Emits User Acceptance Testing scripts in stakeholder-readable format - pre-conditions / business-language steps / expected business outcome / pass-fail / sign-off. Tailored for non-developer testers (end users, SMEs, solution owners) per the UAT canonical definition. Output is one TC per stakeholder-meaningful scenario with explicit sign-off, suitable for compliance / contract / audit records. Use when a release requires formal UAT before sign-off - typical for B2B contracts, regulated industries, or any delivery where the customer's acceptance is the contractual gate.