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-heuristicfcc-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
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
The eleven tours
Each description below is Kelly's own wording. Full prompts and worked examples: references/tours-catalog.md.
| Group | Tour | Kelly's description |
|---|---|---|
| FCC | F - 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." | |
| CUTS | C - 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." | |
| VIDS | V - 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-pattern | Why it fails | Do instead |
|---|---|---|
| Running all eleven tours on every product | The heuristic is a menu, not a checklist; eleven shallow passes crowd out one useful one | Pick the tours that target what is actually unknown |
| Treating a tour as a test pass | A tour builds familiarity; it is not coverage and finds bugs only incidentally | Charter a session for the risks the tour surfaced |
| Confusing these with Whittaker's tours | Different author, different set, different lifecycle stage | Kelly's eleven for recon, exploratory-tours-reference for themed missions |
| Attributing the mnemonic to James Bach | It is Kelly's, from his own blog | Cite michaeldkelly.com |
| Touring without notes | The familiarity evaporates and the next tester starts over | Record findings per tour so gaps become charters |
Limitations
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.