risk-acceptance-decision-author
Build-an-X workflow that produces a structured risk-acceptance decision document - for risks the team has decided to accept (rather than mitigate / transfer / avoid). Walks the author through the ISO 31000 risk-acceptance criteria (rationale, sign-off, scope, review trigger, exit conditions), captures stakeholder approval, and links to the originating risk register entry. Output is a Markdown decision artefact that lives alongside the risk register and provides audit-defensible justification for the team's acceptance choice. Use when a risk register entry's Strategy column is set to Accept, or an already-accepted risk comes up for its scheduled re-review, an audit, or a post-incident look-back.
Install with skills.sh (any agent)
npx skills add testland/qa --skill risk-acceptance-decision-authorrisk-acceptance-decision-author
Overview
Of the four ISO 31000:2018 risk responses, only Accept produces a decision artefact (Avoid / Mitigate / Transfer all produce work). Accept-without-document is the common failure: the risk is silently de-prioritised, nobody remembers why, and the post-mortem finds no paper trail. This skill closes that gap.
Per ISTQB CTAL-TM ch. 5 on risk-response strategies (cite by stable ID).
When to use
Step 1 - Identify the risk being accepted
Pull the entry from the relevant register:
Cross-reference: risk ID, score, category, current mitigations already in place.
Step 2 - State the rationale
The hardest part. Common defensible rationales:
| Rationale | When applicable | Anti-rationale (do NOT accept this) |
|---|---|---|
| Cost of mitigation > expected loss | Quantified: mitigation costs $100k; expected loss = score × loss-per-incident < $100k | "Mitigation is hard" - without quantification |
| Mitigation degrades user experience | E.g., rate-limiting risk; mitigation = strict throttle, would hurt 95% of users to catch <1% abuse | Without UX measurement |
| Risk is in a deprecated subsystem | Subsystem retiring within N quarters; mitigation effort wasted | "We'll get to it eventually" |
| Risk likelihood demonstrably low | Historical data: 0 incidents in 36 months of comparable systems | Hand-wave likelihood claim |
| Compensating monitoring exists | Real-time alert on the risk's failure mode; can respond fast enough that detect→fix < tolerable downtime | "We'll notice" |
Step 3 - Sign-off + scope
Two questions need explicit answers:
Step 4 - Review trigger + exit conditions
A risk acceptance is not permanent. Document the trigger that re-opens the decision:
| Trigger | Example |
|---|---|
| Time | "Re-review at end of Q4 2026" |
| Score change | "Re-review if likelihood ≥ 4 or if any related incident occurs" |
| External event | "Re-review on regulatory change (e.g., new GDPR enforcement guidance)" |
| Architectural change | "Re-review if subsystem moves out of deprecation" |
| Volume threshold | "Re-review when user count crosses 10x current" |
At minimum: time + score-change trigger. Indefinitely-accepted risks (no trigger) are anti-patterns.
Step 5 - Author the decision document
Assemble the fields from Steps 1-4 into one versioned Markdown document with these sections, in order: a header (risk, register-entry link, current score, decision, decided-by), Rationale (with the quantified expected-loss analysis), Scope, Sign-off (at the authority Step 3 requires), Review triggers (time + score-change minimum), Compensating controls (named monitors, alerts, runbooks), and a History log.
Two filled examples - a cost-justified acceptance (PR-008) and a high-score S4 security acceptance (R-99) - are in references/example-decisions.md.
Step 6 - Link bidirectionally
Update the risk register entry:
| PR-008 | Legacy CSV import OOM | 3 | 3 | 9 | Accept | See [risk-acceptance-decision-author/PR-008.md](decisions/PR-008.md) | <owner> | Active |And add to the decisions index:
# Risk acceptance decisions - index
| Decision | Risk | Score | Decided | Next review |
|---|---|---:|---|---|
| [PR-008](decisions/PR-008.md) | Legacy CSV import OOM | 9 | YYYY-MM-DD | Q4 2026 |
| [R-22](decisions/R-22.md) | Cyber-week scope-creep risk | 12 | YYYY-MM-DD | Post-launch |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |Step 7 - Annual review log
## Q4 2026 review of PR-008
- Customer count: 14 (was 12 at decision time; +17%)
- OOM events YTD: 0
- Likelihood reassessment: still ~3; no observed increase
- Decision: **Re-accept** until end of Q2 2027
- Re-signed: <names> ✓ YYYY-MM-DDAnti-patterns
| Anti-pattern | Why it fails | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Accept without document | Decision rationale lost; auditor finds nothing | Always author a decision per accepted risk |
| Indefinite acceptance (no review trigger) | Risk silently persists into next product cycle | Always set at least time + score-change triggers |
| Sign-off at lower authority than the score warrants | Decisions undocumented at the right level; audit fails | Step 3 authority-matching matrix |
| Hand-wave rationale | "We'll just monitor" without specifics - fails post-mortem | Quantify (cost, probability, compensating control); name specific monitors |
| No compensating controls | Acceptance = "we hope nothing bad happens" | Document detective controls (monitoring, alerts, runbooks) |
| Acceptance hidden in a comment field | Not searchable, not auditable | Versioned Markdown in repo; index file |
Limitations
References
Worked example decision documents
View source (opens in new window)Worked example decision documents
Deep reference for the risk-acceptance-decision-author SKILL.md, Step 5. Two filled decision documents assembled from the Step 1-4 fields: a cost-justified acceptance (PR-008) and a high-score S4 security acceptance (R-99) that shows a score >= 15 can still be legitimately accepted with executive sign-off.
Example 1 - cost-justified acceptance (PR-008)
# Risk acceptance decision - PR-008
**Risk:** Legacy CSV import endpoint accepts files up to 500MB
without streaming
**Risk register entry:** [PR-008 in product-risk-register-builder/SKILL.md](...)
**Score (current):** 9 (impact 3 × likelihood 3)
**Decision:** Accept
**Decided:** YYYY-MM-DD **Decided by:** <names>
## Rationale
CSV import endpoint is used by ~12 customers monthly. Migration to
streaming parser would require:
- 2 sprint-weeks engineering effort
- Backwards-compat shim for 6 months
- Customer comms for any behavioural change
Expected loss analysis:
- OOM event probability in next year: ~15% (based on similar
endpoints at peer companies)
- Per-event cost: 1 hour of P2 on-call + customer remediation
(~$2k total)
- Annualised expected loss: ~$3.6k
Mitigation cost: ~$40k (engineering time + opportunity cost).
Acceptance is cost-justified. Compensating control: existing
Kubernetes memory-limit + OOM-killer logs trigger an on-call
alert within 30 seconds; rerun + fix process takes <15 minutes.
## Scope
This acceptance covers releases v3.0 through v3.6 (Q2 2026 - Q4
2026) inclusive. Re-review trigger conditions below.
## Sign-off
- Engineering manager: <name> ✓ YYYY-MM-DD
- QA lead: <name> ✓ YYYY-MM-DD
## Review triggers
Reopen this decision if ANY of:
1. **Time:** End of Q4 2026 (default review).
2. **Score change:** If likelihood rises to 4+ for any reason -
e.g., increased CSV-import customer volume.
3. **Incident:** Any production OOM event traced to this
endpoint.
4. **Architectural:** If the CSV import endpoint moves out of
deprecation (currently planned for v4.0 deprecation).
5. **Customer pressure:** If a customer formally requests
streaming support.
## Compensating controls
- Kubernetes memory limit: 1Gi per pod (auto-OOM-kill at limit)
- Datadog monitor: `csv-import-oom-rate` - alert on any OOM
- Runbook: [`csv-import-oom-runbook`](runbooks/csv-import-oom.md)
- On-call SLA: 30s detection, 15min remediation
## History
- YYYY-MM-DD: Decision authored (this document)
- (future review entries logged here)Example 2 - high-score S4 security acceptance (R-99)
Some risks score high (>= 15) but acceptance is still legitimate. Example: a known-exploitable but rate-limited internal endpoint.
# Risk acceptance decision - R-99 (Security)
**Risk:** Internal admin endpoint vulnerable to CSRF (low-likelihood
because authenticated session required, network-segmented)
**Score:** 15 (impact 5 × likelihood 3)
**Decision:** Accept
## Rationale
CSRF on internal admin endpoint. Likelihood 3 because:
- Requires authenticated admin session (auth-gated)
- Network-segmented to office VPN + on-prem only
- No external internet exposure
Mitigation = CSRF token rotation across 47 admin endpoints. Effort:
3 sprint-weeks. Risk reduction: likelihood 3 → 1.
Accepting because:
- Network segmentation already a compensating control
- Mitigation work would delay v3.0 launch by 3 weeks
- Q3 2026 already scheduled for admin-endpoint hardening
## Sign-off
- CISO: <name> ✓
- VP Engineering: <name> ✓
- Security review board: minutes attached
## Review trigger
- **Time:** End of Q3 2026 (when admin-endpoint hardening
scheduled)
- **Score:** Any external internet-facing exposure of these
endpoints
- **Incident:** Any CSRF attempt observed in logsRelated skills
attack-surface-test-checklist
Maps a code change to the security tests worth running against it. Classifies changed paths and file contents into nine attack surfaces (authentication, session management, input handling, file upload, deserialization, access control, API and web service, cryptography, data protection), attaches the matching OWASP ASVS 4.0.3 verification requirements, OWASP Top 10 2021 category IDs, and OWASP WSTG section numbers to each active surface, then emits a per-surface manual and automated test checklist bounded by what actually changed. Surfaces with no changed lines are excluded rather than carried as filler. Use when a pull request, release branch, or feature is about to be security tested and the team needs a targeted test list instead of a generic application-wide checklist.
code-change-shape-classifier
Classifies a code change set into four shapes (pure-logic, service-layer, ui-heavy, data-heavy) from file-path and file-content signals, computes the shape distribution over a window of git history, and attaches a relative per-layer test cost model (unit 1x, service 3x, UI 10x) so downstream planning works from one shared input. Produces the classification only: it does not prescribe a target unit:service:UI ratio, does not estimate hours, and does not select which tests to run. Use when a pull request, release branch, or epic needs its change shape labelled before test effort, pyramid balance, or coverage depth is decided.
definition-of-done
Pure-reference + checklist-generator for the team's Definition of Done (DoD) - explains the Scrum Guide's DoD definition ("a formal description of the state of the Increment when it meets the quality measures required for the product"), proposes a starter DoD with the 7-10 lines most teams need (code reviewed, unit tests, docs, AC met, deployed to staging, smoke passed, no a11y regressions, telemetry wired, observability in place), and emits a per-PR checklist a reviewer enforces. Use when the team doesn't have a DoD or wants to revise theirs.
dod-adherence-review
Audits an existing Definition of Done checklist line by line against repository evidence (review records, diffs, CI runs, coverage reports, scan output) and tags every line met, not met, or unverifiable, refusing to pass a line on self-attestation or on a claim with no matching diff. Covers the line-pattern-to-evidence mapping for the common checklist shapes (code reviewed, coverage threshold, docs updated, acceptance criteria covered, staging deploy plus smoke, no new accessibility regressions, telemetry wired), the entry-stage versus exit-stage split many teams run, the roll-up verdict rules, and the audit table that gets emitted. Does not author, revise, or soften the checklist. Use when a story or pull request is about to be marked done and a committed Definition of Done exists that nobody has actually checked the work against.
e2e-suite-budget
Caps E2E suite size by computing per-test ROI - (regressions caught × value) ÷ (runtime × flake rate × maintenance) - then ranks every end-to-end test and recommends which bottom-decile ones to retire, move to a lower layer, or fix. Use when CI is slow or E2E-dominated, flaky failures are rising, or quarterly to keep suite size within maintenance capacity. For strategic unit:service:UI layer ratios use test-pyramid-balancer, for the minimal per-deploy critical-path gate use smoke-suite-gate, and for quarantining flaky tests use flaky-test-quarantine; this prunes low-signal tests by ROI.
framework-choice-advisor
Pure reference catalog for picking a test automation framework - covers Playwright / Cypress / Selenium / WebdriverIO / Appium / Espresso / XCUITest / RestAssured / Karate / k6 / Locust with side-by-side tradeoffs on speed, cross-browser, mobile, parallelisation, language support, ecosystem maturity, CI integration; a decision tree for matching project NFRs to framework choice; and reference directory / fixture / CI layouts for the chosen stack. This is the **upstream selection step**: it decides which tool to adopt, not how to configure a tool already chosen, and not how to rebalance the unit / integration / E2E mix of an existing suite. Use when starting a new test-automation suite from scratch, before installing any tool.
heuristic-test-design-reference
Reference catalog of the four canonical heuristic test-design models - Bach's Heuristic Test Strategy Model (HTSM) with SFDPOT product elements, Whittaker's 'How to Break Software' attack patterns, Bolton's FEW HICCUPPS consistency oracles, and the ISO/IEC 25010 quality characteristics - for use when the tester has no user story, no acceptance criteria, and no documentation. This is the zero-documentation case: it does not read from a written story, and it yields test-case ideas rather than session charters. Use as the reference layer when generating coverage for a feature with no documented input.
post-mortem-author
Build-an-X workflow that produces a blameless post-mortem from an incident - captures the timeline (chronological event sequence with sources), root cause analysis (what + why, not who), impact (users / revenue / SLO debt), action items (with owners + due dates + measurable success criteria), and "what went well" (intentional). Per Google SRE: "Blameless postmortems are a tenet of SRE culture." Use after every user-visible incident, not just severe ones.
product-risk-register-builder
Build-an-X workflow that produces a product-level risk register catalogue - per-feature / per-component product risks (functionality, performance, security, usability, compatibility, reliability) that persist across releases, distinct from per-release risk matrices. Walks the author through risk identification by ISO 25010 quality characteristic, scoring per impact × likelihood, and linking each register entry to mitigations + owners + review cadence. Output is a Markdown register the team reviews quarterly and that seeds release-level risk matrices. Use for long-lived product-quality risks; complements risk-matrix for per-release risks.
project-risk-register-builder
Build-an-X workflow producing a project-level risk register - risks to project execution (schedule slippage, environment instability, people / staffing, vendor / dependency, scope creep) rather than the product itself. Walks the author through ISO 31000-aligned identification, impact × likelihood scoring, mitigation strategy (avoid / mitigate / transfer / accept), and ownership; the project manager reviews it weekly. Use for release-execution risk. For product-quality risks use product-risk-register-builder, for the per-release product risk table use risk-matrix, and to sign off accepting one specific risk use risk-acceptance-decision-author.
qa-okr-author
Build-an-X workflow that drafts a QA team's quarterly OKR set - one to three Objectives, each with 3 - 5 measurable Key Results - from the team's current state (risk matrix, defect-trend narrative, test-run history, test-pyramid balance, compliance coverage). Every numeric target cites its source artifact (e.g., a defect-trend baseline's 2026-Q1 escape rate). QA-specific by design - generic OKR generators (Tability, Asana, ClickUp) don't know test metrics; the differentiation is the domain. Produces the OKR set itself - not the test-strategy document it sits inside, and not the risk-score calibration behind the baselines. Use at the start of each quarter to draft the OKR set the manager edits and the team commits to.
qa-vendor-evaluator
Build-an-X workflow that produces a side-by-side **commercial-vendor** evaluation matrix for QA tools - test-management platforms (TestRail / Qase / Xray / Zephyr / TestCollab), no-code platforms (mabl / Testim / Functionize / TestSigma / Reflect), visual regression services (Applitools / Percy / Chromatic), and commercial AI copilots - scoring each on capability fit, cost model, integration depth, vendor lock-in risk, exit cost, contractual posture, and customer-reference data. Scoped to commercial procurement - contract, lock-in, and exit-cost axes - not to choosing an open-source code-first framework on architectural fit. Use for commercial procurement decisions only - refuses to recommend a winner; the team owns the procurement choice.
risk-coverage-mapper
Build-an-X workflow that produces a risk-to-test-coverage matrix - maps each risk in the product/release register to the tests / cases / monitoring that mitigate it. Walks the author through ingesting risks (from risk-matrix / product-risk-register-builder), inventorying test coverage (test cases via traceability-matrix-builder, automated tests via repo scan, production monitoring via observability dashboards), and computing per-risk coverage depth + identifying orphan risks (no coverage) + orphan tests (not linked to risks). Output is a Markdown matrix + executive summary. Use before a release sign-off or compliance audit, when the team must show which tests, cases, or monitors back each registered risk and which risks have nothing behind them.
risk-matrix
Produces the per-feature / per-release risk-matrix artifact itself: a structured intake (feature, category, impact 1-5 by likelihood 1-5, score), mitigations with owners and due dates, supporting both lightweight (impact by likelihood) and heavyweight (FMEA / Cost of Exposure) methods per RBT canon, output as a Markdown / spreadsheet the team reviews each sprint. Use when building the matrix artifact; to facilitate the live risk-storming meeting use risk-storming-facilitator, to calibrate scores across raters use risk-matrix-calibration, and to map the resulting risks onto test coverage use risk-coverage-mapper.
risk-matrix-calibration
Checks an already-written risk matrix against what actually happened. Maps each row's likelihood rating to observed defect density, test failure rate and code churn, maps its impact rating to the severity mix and escape rate, then classifies each row as over-stated, under-stated, in-agreement, or not calibrated, using stated reporting thresholds so small differences are not treated as findings. Every proposed rating change carries the observation that produced it, and every proposal is handed to the matrix owner rather than applied. Also emits candidate new entries for areas that show up in defect data but have no row. Owns calibration only: choosing a scoring methodology, designing the matrix structure, picking risk categories, mapping risks to test types, FMEA scoring, review cadence and file storage are all out of scope. Use when a matrix has been driving test decisions for at least three releases and nobody has yet checked whether its ratings match the defects, escapes and incidents that followed.
risk-storming-facilitator
Reference guide for planning and facilitating a risk-storming session yourself - meeting structure, participant roster, per-category brainstorm prompts (categories from risk-matrix), affinity grouping, impact by likelihood scoring, and mitigation assignment. Static reference only, not an active runner that writes the matrix file. Use to learn or teach the facilitation pattern, or to run a feature-kickoff session without agent assistance. For the matrix artifact itself use risk-matrix, to calibrate its ratings against real defect data use risk-matrix-calibration, and to map the resulting risks onto test coverage use risk-coverage-mapper.
smoke-suite-gate
Build-an-X workflow for a critical-path smoke suite that runs in <5 minutes - picks the 5-15 highest-business-value journeys (login, hero flow, checkout, payment, primary read), implements as fast E2E or API tests, gates per-deploy, retries on transient failures with quarantine. Use as the canary-precursor or per-deploy verification gate; the team's "if this fails, the build can't proceed" floor.
tdd-stuck-pattern-resolver
Pattern catalog for "I can't write the test first" moments - recognizes common testability blockers (singletons / static dependencies, network in constructors, time / random as hidden inputs, deeply nested construction, untestable boundaries) and proposes the refactor that unblocks TDD (extract interface, dependency injection, seam, ports-and-adapters). Use as TDD coaching when an engineer is stuck on a class of code. For a catalog of what-to-test heuristics with no story use heuristic-test-design-reference, to label a change's shape before planning test effort use code-change-shape-classifier, and for conventions on writing the test well once the code is testable use test-code-conventions.
test-case-from-live-feature
Build-an-X workflow that produces a test-case matrix from a **live, undocumented feature** - running app at a URL, screen recording, screenshot, or verbal brief - by combining structured exploration (Playwright trace / DevTools / accessibility tree) with the heuristic models in `heuristic-test-design-reference` (SFDPOT, Whittaker attacks, FEW HICCUPPS, ISO 25010). Output is a structured case matrix, not an exploratory session charter. Use when there is no story, no AC, and no documentation - only a live feature.
test-case-ideation-from-story
Takes a user story or feature spec and emits a markdown test-case matrix - one row per case (id, title, precondition, steps, expected, tier) covering happy path, alternate paths, boundaries, and negative paths - before any test code is written. Output is the human-reviewable matrix that goes into TestRail / Qase / Xray. Emits the human-reviewable case matrix itself - not Gherkin scenarios written against locked acceptance criteria, and not executable test code. Use as the first artifact a manual tester or three-amigos session produces from a story, ahead of automation.
test-effort-estimation
Turns a list of testable areas plus a change-shape distribution into a PERT three-point test effort estimate, reporting every row as a range around the expected value rather than a single number, requiring a named assumptions ledger across six mandatory categories, and recommending a per-layer ownership split across developer, automation, and exploratory roles. Owns the hours and the ownership recommendation only: it consumes a change-shape distribution rather than producing one, and it does not choose which tests to run or how deep coverage should go. Use when an epic or release has been broken into testable areas and someone is about to commit test capacity for a sprint.
test-pyramid-balancer
Build-an-X workflow that analyzes a repo's test mix (unit / integration / E2E counts + runtimes) and recommends rebalancing toward the test pyramid ratios per the change-set shape - pure-logic-heavy repo wants ~80/15/5; UI-heavy repo wants ~60/25/15. Detects 'ice-cream cone' (E2E-heavy) and 'hourglass' (integration-thin) anti-patterns. Use when the user asks about test distribution, test strategy, test balance, too many E2E tests, slow CI caused by tests, testing best practices, or rebalancing their test suite; also suitable for quarterly calibration of the test mix to codebase reality.
test-strategy-author
Authors a test strategy document (a master test plan) for a project, release, or feature - covers scope, in/out, test types per layer (unit / integration / contract / E2E / perf / security / a11y), risk-based test prioritization that maps top risks to test investment (per `risk-matrix`), tooling stack, environments, exit criteria, and ownership. Use when a team needs the release-readiness artifact stakeholders sign off on before significant test investment, and the reference engineering teams return to when scope or quality questions arise.
tool-selection-decision-record
Defines the output contract for writing down a chosen developer tool as a portable decision record: the observed project signal, exactly one primary recommendation, rationale that names the rejected alternative, what to read next, and a mandatory list of the conditions that would flip the choice. Adapts Architecture Decision Record conventions (context, decision, consequences, status, supersede rather than edit) to tool selection, and refuses any recommendation inferred from a README or a folder name instead of a manifest, lockfile, config file, or existing test directory. Distinct from a catalog or advisor that compares candidate tools on their merits: this owns the shape of the written record, not the comparison. Use when a tool has just been chosen (test framework, build tool, linter, package manager, migration tool) and the choice needs to be recorded so a later reader can see the signal, the rejected alternative, and what would reverse it.