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.
Install with skills.sh (any agent)
npx skills add testland/qa --skill test-execution-checklisttest-execution-checklist
Overview
A full step-table manual script (per manual-test-script-author) is overkill for some situations:
For these, a focused checklist wins: ~10-30 items, each one line, each with a clear pass/fail. The whole list fits on one screen / one printed page; the runner sweeps through it in 5-15 minutes.
This skill produces those checklists from the upstream regression suite (or a test plan).
When to use
If the use case is "test a feature thoroughly before release," use manual-test-script-author instead - full step-table format with expected results per step.
Step 1 - Pick scope
A checklist's value is its focus. Scope by one of:
| Scope | Item count | Wall time | Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Critical-path smoke | ~10 | ~5 min | Per-deploy. |
| Primary-flow check | ~20 | ~15 min | On-call first-pass. |
| Full-feature sweep | ~30 | ~30 min | Bug-bash kickoff. |
| Compliance record | ~10 | ~10 min | Weekly / monthly. |
Wider scope = lower run frequency = less repeated value.
Step 2 - Convert each test case to one-line form
Source TCs from manual-test-script-author or the existing regression suite. Compress each to a single line with three slots:
[ ] [feature]: [action] → [observable outcome]Examples:
[ ] **Login**: enter `qa-test-user@example.com` + valid pwd → dashboard loads in <3s.
[ ] **Cart**: add `BOOK-001` → cart count badge shows "1".
[ ] **Promo code**: apply `WELCOME10` → subtotal drops by 10%.
[ ] **Checkout**: click `Place order` → confirmation page within 5s.
[ ] **Email**: order confirmation arrives within 5 min.If a step needs 3+ lines to express, split into multiple checklist items OR move it back to the full step-table format - the checklist isn't the right artifact for that step.
Step 3 - Group by flow
A 30-item flat list is hard to scan. Group:
## Production smoke - release `v1.4.5`
**Tester:** ___________________ **Date:** ___________________ **Time:** ___________________
**Environment:** prod | staging **Build SHA:** ___________________
### Auth flow
- [ ] **Login** (existing user): `qa-test-user@example.com` + valid pwd → dashboard <3s
- [ ] **Logout**: click `Sign out` → redirect to `/login`
- [ ] **Password reset**: click `Forgot password` → email arrives within 5 min
### Cart + checkout flow
- [ ] **Add to cart**: SKU `BOOK-001` → cart count badge shows "1"
- [ ] **Cart page**: navigate to `/cart` → item visible with qty 1, $24.99
- [ ] **Promo code**: apply `WELCOME10` → subtotal drops to $22.49
- [ ] **Checkout**: complete checkout with Stripe test card 4242 → confirmation page
### Account flow
- [ ] **Profile update**: change email → save → reload → email persists
- [ ] **Order history**: view past orders → most recent test order present
### Sign-off
**Pass / fail / partial:**
**Defects raised:** (list IDs)
**Notes:**The flow grouping doubles as a coverage check - empty groups mean the smoke doesn't cover that flow.
Step 4 - Time-box and document
A checklist that takes "as long as it takes" gets skipped. Set an explicit budget per group:
| Group | Items | Budget |
|---------------------|------:|-------:|
| Auth flow | 3 | 3 min |
| Cart + checkout flow | 4 | 6 min |
| Account flow | 2 | 3 min |
| **Total** | 9 | 12 min |If the actual run exceeds the budget by >50%, the checklist is too long; trim to the highest-signal items.
Step 5 - Pair with a defect-raising flow
Same as manual-test-script-author Step 6 - checklist failures need a path to a logged defect:
### Defects raised this run
| # | Item | Observed | Severity | Bug ID |
|---|-----------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|----------|---------|
| 1 | Promo code: apply WELCOME10 | Subtotal stayed at $24.99 | high | BUG-987 |Step 6 - Versioning
The checklist evolves with the product. Keep it in docs/:
docs/checklists/
├── prod-smoke-v1.md
├── prod-smoke-v2.md ← current
├── on-call-first-pass-v1.md
└── bug-bash-checkout-v1.mdBumping the version when the items change (rather than mutating in place) preserves the historical record - useful for audit ("what did the smoke check on 2026-04-15?") and for retrospective on incidents that the smoke missed.
Output format
## Test execution checklists - `<feature/area>`
**Generated from:** `<source - TC suite / test plan / story>`
**Total items:** N
**Total wall-time budget:** M minutes
**Scope:** smoke | first-pass | full sweep | compliance
(per-checklist bodies follow per Step 3)
### Coverage notes
- Auth flow: N items covering login + logout + password reset
- Cart flow: N items covering add + view + checkout
- Areas NOT covered (intentional): admin panel (out of smoke scope),
internationalized currencies (covered weekly via `prod-smoke-i18n.md`)Anti-patterns
| Anti-pattern | Why it fails | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| 50-item flat list | Tester loses focus; coverage drops mid-run. | Group by flow, ≤8-10 items per group (Step 3). |
| Items with multi-line steps | Defeats the checklist's purpose (one-line scan). | Split or move to full step-table (Step 2). |
| No time budget | "When you have time" → never run. | Per-group budget (Step 4). |
| One generic checklist for "everything" | Tries to be smoke + UAT + compliance; serves none well. | Per-purpose checklists; pick scope first (Step 1). |
| No defect-raising integration | Failed items get logged in chat; the run record is incomplete. | Defects-raised block in the sign-off (Step 5). |
| Checklist mutated in place (no version) | Can't tell what was checked when; audit / incident analysis broken. | Versioned files (Step 6). |
| "Smoke" check that takes 45 minutes | Smoke ≠ full regression; team skips after deploy. | Hard cap at 10-15 min for smoke (Step 1 table). |
Limitations
References
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.
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).
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.
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.