manual-test-script-author

Overview

Not every test should (or can) be automated. Some need a human:

• Acceptance / UAT scripts that go to a non-developer end user.
• Regression baselines for legacy code where the cost of automation exceeds the test's run frequency.
• Certification / compliance scripts that an auditor walks step-by-step.
• First-pass exploration follow-up - a script formalizing what exploratory testing surfaced.

This skill builds those scripts in two interchangeable formats: a step-table for spreadsheet review or Gherkin for BDD-aware teams.

For session-based exploratory tests (where the script doesn't predetermine steps), use a charter-driven exploratory session instead.

When to use

• A feature has stakeholder-visible behavior that's hard to assert in code (visual look-and-feel, content review, multi-channel flow).
• A non-developer needs to run regression checks (UAT testers, product managers, customer support).
• An automated test suite needs a manual fallback for edge cases the runner can't reach.

If the feature is fully automatable and the team has the budget, write an automated test - see acceptance-criteria-extractor for the upstream Gherkin generation.

Step 1 - Read the input

The skill takes one of:

• A user story / PRD section.
• A bug report (for regression-baseline scripts).
• An exploratory testing session debrief (for follow-up scripts).
• An acceptance criterion line item (for UAT scripts).

Extract the actor, trigger, and observable outcomes - the same Gherkin structure as acceptance-criteria-extractor. A manual script is the same logical shape as a Gherkin scenario; the difference is the level of detail + the inclusion of setup data.

Step 2 - Format A: step-table (spreadsheet)

The default format. Reads top-to-bottom; each row is one step the tester executes:

## TC-1234 - Apply promo code at checkout

**Feature:** Checkout - promo codes
**Tester:** ____________________   **Date:** ____________________
**Build:** ____________________   **Environment:** staging | prod

### Preconditions

- [ ] User account `qa-test-user@example.com` exists with valid
      payment method (Stripe test card 4242…) attached.
- [ ] Cart contains 1× SKU `BOOK-001` ($24.99).
- [ ] Promo code `WELCOME10` is active in the admin panel
      (10% off, no minimum).

### Steps

| #  | Action                                                  | Expected result                                                | Actual | Pass/Fail | Notes |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------|-------|
| 1  | Navigate to `/checkout`.                                  | Cart subtotal shows `$24.99`. Promo input is visible.          |        |           |       |
| 2  | Enter `WELCOME10` in the promo input. Click `Apply`.      | Subtotal updates to `$22.49`. Confirmation toast: "Code applied". |       |           |       |
| 3  | Click `Place order`.                                      | Confirmation page shows order ID. Total `$22.49` (plus tax).   |        |           |       |
| 4  | Check email inbox for `qa-test-user@example.com`.         | Confirmation email arrives within 5 min, total `$22.49`.       |        |           |       |

### Sign-off

**Tester signature:** ____________________
**Sign-off date:** ____________________

### Defects raised

(list)

The Preconditions block is load-bearing - without it, the tester improvises setup, and the script's repeatability collapses. Cite specific test data (account email, SKU, code) so two runs produce the same result.

Step 3 - Format B: Gherkin (BDD-aware)

Feature: Apply promo code at checkout

  Background:
    Given a logged-in user "qa-test-user@example.com" with a valid Stripe test card attached
    And the user's cart contains 1× SKU "BOOK-001" ($24.99)
    And promo code "WELCOME10" is active (10% off, no minimum)

  Scenario: Apply valid promo at checkout
    Given the user is on the /checkout page
    When the user enters "WELCOME10" in the promo input
    And the user clicks "Apply"
    Then the subtotal updates from "$24.99" to "$22.49"
    And a confirmation toast appears: "Code applied"

    When the user clicks "Place order"
    Then the confirmation page shows an order ID
    And the order total is "$22.49" (plus tax)
    And a confirmation email arrives within 5 minutes at "qa-test-user@example.com" with total "$22.49"

  Scenario: Apply expired promo at checkout
    Given promo code "EXPIRED50" is inactive (expired 2026-01-01)
    When the user enters "EXPIRED50" in the promo input
    And the user clicks "Apply"
    Then the subtotal remains "$24.99"
    And an error appears: "This code has expired"

Same content as Format A, different shape. Pick based on the team's tooling: spreadsheets prefer A; Cucumber / Behat prefer B.

Step 4 - Single-scenario discipline

A 30-step script that bundles 5 scenarios (happy path + 4 edge cases) is unmaintainable. The pattern:

• One TC per logical scenario (one happy + one variant per TC).
• Edge cases are sibling TCs, not appended steps.

TC-1234 - Apply valid promo
TC-1235 - Apply expired promo
TC-1236 - Apply invalid-format promo
TC-1237 - Apply already-used promo
TC-1238 - Apply promo to empty cart

The cost is more TCs; the benefit is per-TC pass/fail clarity. A 30-step bundle that fails at step 17 obscures whether step 17 was the bug or step 12 was a precondition violation.

Step 5 - Self-contained data

Per exploratory-wiki (opens in new window):

"In reality, testing almost always is a combination of exploratory and scripted testing, but with a tendency towards either one, depending on context."

Manual scripts that depend on "the test data the team uses" or "whatever account QA has" fail when the next tester runs them. The script must specify:

• Test account credentials (or "create per the create-account TC with these inputs").
• Specific SKUs / product IDs / record IDs.
• Specific test cards / synthetic PII per the canonical sources (e.g. Stripe test cards 4242 4242 4242 4242).
• Expected URLs, button labels, copy text - verbatim where copy is checked by the test.

Step 6 - Defect-raising integration

When a step fails, the tester needs to log a defect with enough context for the developer to reproduce. The script's Defects raised section captures:

| Defect ID | Step  | Expected                          | Actual                           | Severity |
|-----------|-------|-----------------------------------|----------------------------------|----------|
| BUG-9876  |   2   | Subtotal updates to `$22.49`       | Subtotal stays at `$24.99`; toast says "Invalid code" | high    |

Turn each failure into a structured bug-reproduction package.

Output format

## Manual test scripts - `<feature>`

**Source spec:** `<story / PRD / charter>`
**Format:** step-table | gherkin
**Scripts produced:** N
**Estimated wall time per full run:** ~M minutes

| TC ID  | Title                                       | Format     | Wall time | Coverage |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|------------|----------:|----------|
| TC-1234 | Apply valid promo                            | step-table |   ~3 min  | happy path |
| TC-1235 | Apply expired promo                          | step-table |   ~3 min  | edge      |
| TC-1236 | Apply invalid-format promo                   | step-table |   ~2 min  | edge      |

(per-TC bodies follow)

### Test data dependencies

- Account: `qa-test-user@example.com`
- SKUs: `BOOK-001` ($24.99)
- Promo codes: `WELCOME10` (active), `EXPIRED50` (expired)
- Test card: Stripe `4242 4242 4242 4242`

### Author notes

- Each TC is self-contained - no implicit cross-TC dependencies.
- Sign-off block is per-TC; aggregate sign-off via release runbook.

Anti-patterns

Limitations

• Maintenance overhead. Manual scripts need updating when the product changes. For high-churn areas, automation is cheaper long-term.
• Tester skill matters. A script can't replace the tester's observational judgment ("the toast was visible but the animation looked broken").
• Coverage of edge cases. Manual scripts cover what the author imagined; exploratory testing catches what the author didn't - pair with charter-driven exploratory testing.

References

• exp (opens in new window) - Exploratory vs scripted testing distinction; "most real-world testing combines both approaches with emphasis depending on project context."
• acceptance-criteria-extractor - upstream: emits Gherkin from a story; this skill turns Gherkin into a tester-runnable script.
• uat-script-author - sibling: same shape, scoped to UAT.