Testland
Browse all skills & agents

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.

Install with skills.sh (any agent)

npx skills add testland/qa --skill uat-script-author
View source

uat-script-author

Overview

UAT scripts are written for stakeholders, not developers: the end user, subject-matter expert (SME), or solution owner runs the script in business language, and the success criterion is "this works for the business," not "no exceptions thrown." Sign-off is a contractual artifact - upon meeting the acceptance criteria the stakeholder signs off, confirming the product meets defined requirements (uat-wiki (opens in new window)). This skill emits those scripts.

When to use

  • A release requires formal UAT - B2B contracts, regulated industries (finance, healthcare, gov), enterprise SaaS.
  • A new feature needs business sign-off before launch.
  • A vendor contract requires "customer acceptance" as the payment trigger.
  • A migration / rebuild needs the customer to confirm "yes, this is what we wanted" before old system shutdown.

If the test is technical (verify HTTP 200, validate schema), see manual-test-script-author - that's the developer-facing format.

Step 1 - Identify the user journey

Per uat-wiki (opens in new window):

"UAT should be executed against test scenarios representing user journeys rather than technical click-by-click steps."

A UAT script covers one user journey end-to-end, not a single button-click. The journey is what the business stakeholder agreed to in the contract / SOW / acceptance criteria.

Examples:

  • "A new customer signs up, places a first order, and receives confirmation."
  • "An existing customer updates their billing address and the invoice reflects the change next billing cycle."
  • "An admin creates a new user, assigns roles, and the user can log in with the assigned permissions."

Per uat-wiki (opens in new window), select the "three most common or difficult tasks users will perform" - UAT depth, not breadth.

Step 2 - Format

# UAT-001 - New customer first-order flow

**Customer / Stakeholder:** ____________________
**Tester:** ____________________   **Date:** ____________________
**Environment:** UAT   **Build / Version:** v1.4.5

## Business context

This script verifies that a new prospective customer can complete
the full sign-up + first-order journey end-to-end, including
account creation, email confirmation, browsing the catalog, adding
items to cart, completing checkout, and receiving confirmation.

This corresponds to acceptance criterion **AC-1** in the SOW.

## Pre-conditions

- [ ] Test environment is at build `v1.4.5` (verified by tester).
- [ ] Tester has not previously created an account on this UAT
      environment.
- [ ] Test payment method is available: Stripe test card
      4242 4242 4242 4242, any expiry, any CVC.
- [ ] Tester has access to email inbox for `<email>@example.com`.

## Steps

| Step | Action                                                           | Expected outcome                                                        | Pass | Fail | Notes |
|------|------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|:----:|:----:|-------|
| 1    | Open `https://uat.example.com/`. Click "Sign up".                  | Sign-up form appears.                                                    |      |      |       |
| 2    | Enter email `uat-001-<initials>@example.com`, set password.        | "Verify your email" prompt appears.                                      |      |      |       |
| 3    | Open the email inbox; click the verification link.                 | Browser opens to dashboard; greeting shows the user's name.              |      |      |       |
| 4    | Browse the catalog. Search for "BOOK-001".                         | Product page loads showing the item details and "Add to cart" button.   |      |      |       |
| 5    | Click "Add to cart". Click the cart icon.                          | Cart page shows "BOOK-001" qty 1, $24.99.                                 |      |      |       |
| 6    | Click "Checkout". Enter shipping address.                          | Order summary shows shipping cost; tax computed per address.             |      |      |       |
| 7    | Enter payment details (test card 4242…). Click "Place order".      | Confirmation page shows order ID; total matches step 6.                  |      |      |       |
| 8    | Open email inbox; verify confirmation email arrives within 5 min.  | Email shows order ID, items, total, expected delivery date.              |      |      |       |

## Acceptance criteria verification

| AC ID  | Description                                                | Verified in step | Pass / fail |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|:-----------:|
| AC-1.1 | New customer can sign up                                    | 1, 2, 3          |             |
| AC-1.2 | New customer can browse the catalog                         | 4                |             |
| AC-1.3 | New customer can add items to cart                          | 5                |             |
| AC-1.4 | New customer can complete checkout                          | 6, 7             |             |
| AC-1.5 | New customer receives order confirmation                    | 8                |             |

## Sign-off

**Tester:** ____________________  **Date:** ____________________

**Customer / Stakeholder:** ____________________  **Date:** ____________________

By signing, the stakeholder confirms that the system meets
acceptance criteria AC-1.1 through AC-1.5 as defined in the
Statement of Work, dated YYYY-MM-DD.

## Defects raised

| Bug ID | Step | Severity | Description |
|--------|------|----------|-------------|
|        |      |          |             |

Step 3 - Business language, not implementation

UAT scripts are read by stakeholders who don't speak HTTP / DB / React. Translate:

Implementation languageBusiness language
POST /orders returns 201The order is placed and the system shows a confirmation.
cart.items.length === 1The cart shows the item.
email.subject === 'Order confirmation'An order confirmation email arrives.
auth_token is set in the cookieThe user is logged in.
INSERT INTO users succeededThe account is created.

The script is about outcomes, not mechanisms.

Step 4 - Three-tasks rule

Per uat-wiki (opens in new window): "the three most common or difficult tasks users will perform" - UAT covers depth, not breadth.

A UAT round shouldn't have 50 scripts. The pattern:

  • 5-10 scripts covering the three most common user journeys.
  • 2-5 scripts covering the two or three most difficult tasks (the ones that go wrong most often in the team's history).

If the contract has 30 acceptance criteria, group them into ~10 journeys; one script per journey.

Step 5 - Run the round, log defects, re-test

Execute each script with the stakeholder. For every failed step, log a defect in the "Defects raised" table (Step 2 format) with its step and severity. Verify: every row in the acceptance-criteria table must read pass before sign-off; if any AC fails, hand the defects to the team, fix them, and re-run the affected scripts. Repeat until all acceptance criteria pass - do not proceed to sign-off with an open failing AC.

Step 6 - Sign-off as artifact

The signed UAT scripts go into the customer record:

  • Hard-copy file (paper-signed for legal records).
  • Soft-copy in the team's contract management system.
  • PR comment in the team's repo (referencing the signed PDF).

The sign-off date triggers the contractual milestone (payment, go-live authorization, vendor approval).

Anti-patterns

Anti-patternWhy it failsFix
Implementation-language stepsStakeholder can't follow.Translate to business language (Step 3).
50 UAT scriptsStakeholder won't run them all; rubber-stamp result.5-10 + 2-5 difficult (Step 4).
Steps without expected outcomesStakeholder doesn't know what "success" means; subjective sign-off.Every step has an expected outcome (Step 2).
No acceptance criteria mappingSign-off doesn't tie back to contract; legal exposure.AC verification table (Step 2).
Script that mixes positive and negative casesStakeholder confused; sign-off ambiguous.Positive cases only in UAT; negative cases via QA's regression suite.
Asking the developer to run UATDefeats the purpose; per uat-wiki (opens in new window) the end user / SME runs it.Hand to the right person.
Skipping sign-off ("we'll do it later")Contract milestone slips; payment delayed; trust eroded.Hard-stop the release without signed scripts.

Limitations

  • Stakeholder availability. UAT requires the customer's time; scheduling is the rate-limiter.
  • Soft acceptance. Stakeholders may sign off without thoroughly testing; the script's structure helps but doesn't enforce.
  • No automation parity. UAT explicitly tests the user experience; automated tests of the same steps don't substitute.
  • Per-customer customization. B2B UAT often requires customer-specific scripts (their data, their workflows). Scale by tenancy, not by template.

References

  • uat-wiki (opens in new window) - User acceptance testing definition: who runs it (end user / SME / solution owner), purpose (sign-off as contractual artifact), format (user journeys, not technical click-steps), three-most-common-or-difficult-tasks rule.
  • manual-test-script-author - sibling: developer-facing format.
  • acceptance-criteria-extractor (in the qa-shift-left plugin) - upstream: emits the ACs this skill turns into UAT scripts.

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.

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.