Testland
Browse all skills & agents

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.

Install with skills.sh (any agent)

npx skills add testland/qa --skill smoke-suite-gate
View source

smoke-suite-gate

Overview

A smoke suite is the minimum end-to-end test set every deploy must pass, gating pre-merge, post-merge to main, post-deploy to staging, and post-deploy to canary. A smoke failure halts the release.

When to use

  • The CI/CD pipeline lacks a fast deploy gate; full regression takes too long for per-deploy.
  • A canary stage needs a precursor smoke test that's faster than the full canary observation.
  • A new release process needs the "first-line defense" check.

For broader coverage, see the team's full E2E suite (per qa-web-e2e plugin) - smoke is the narrow, fast subset.

Step 1 - Identify the critical paths

The smoke suite covers 5-15 journeys. Picking criteria:

  1. High business value - broken = revenue / brand impact within minutes.
  2. High traffic - most users hit this; broken = many users affected.
  3. Cross-system - exercises multiple components; broken = integration regression.

Examples by product:

Product typeSmoke journeys
E-commerceSign-in, search, add to cart, checkout, confirmation
SaaS B2BSign-in, dashboard load, primary feature, save, sign-out
Banking appSign-in, account balance, recent transactions, payment
Content siteHome page, article load, search, sign-up

Step 2 - Implement fast

Smoke tests must run in <5 minutes total. Constraints:

AspectSmoke
Per-test budget30-60s
Total tests5-15 (one per critical journey)
SetupSynthetic test account + test-mode payment
AssertionsExistence + status code + key text (not exhaustive)
Retries1 retry on transient failure
// e2e/smoke/checkout.smoke.spec.ts
import { test, expect } from '@playwright/test';

test.describe('Smoke - checkout', () => {
  test('sign in → add to cart → checkout', async ({ page }) => {
    // 1. Sign in
    await page.goto('/login');
    await page.getByLabel('Email').fill(process.env.SMOKE_USER_EMAIL!);
    await page.getByLabel('Password').fill(process.env.SMOKE_USER_PASSWORD!);
    await page.getByRole('button', { name: /sign in/i }).click();
    await expect(page.getByRole('heading', { name: /welcome/i })).toBeVisible({ timeout: 10000 });

    // 2. Add to cart
    await page.goto('/products/SMOKE-001');
    await page.getByRole('button', { name: /add to cart/i }).click();
    await expect(page.getByTestId('cart-count')).toHaveText('1');

    // 3. Checkout
    await page.goto('/checkout');
    await page.getByLabel(/card/i).fill('4242 4242 4242 4242');
    await page.getByRole('button', { name: /place order/i }).click();
    await expect(page.getByRole('heading', { name: /order confirmed/i })).toBeVisible({ timeout: 15000 });
  });
});

Note: smoke tests use a pre-seeded test account, test-mode payment, and a known SKU (SMOKE-001). They don't create or delete data - pure read flows are best.

Step 3 - Pre-deploy vs post-deploy

StageSmoke check
Pre-merge (PR)Build artifact; deploy to ephemeral env; run smoke; tear down.
Post-merge to mainDeploy to staging; run smoke against staging.
Post-deploy to stagingRe-run smoke (verifies the deploy didn't break anything).
Post-deploy to canarySmoke runs first; if green, canary observation begins.
Post-deploy to prodSmoke runs against prod (read-only) as the final verification.

Per stage, smoke acts as the "is this deploy worth proceeding with" gate.

Step 4 - Failure handling

A failing smoke isn't always a real regression - sometimes flake. Pattern:

- name: Run smoke
  id: smoke
  run: npx playwright test e2e/smoke/ --retries=2 --workers=2

- name: Quarantine repeat failure
  if: steps.smoke.outcome == 'failure'
  run: |
    if [ "${{ steps.smoke.conclusion }}" == "failure" ]; then
      # Real failure (failed twice with retries) - block deploy
      exit 1
    fi

The 2-retry rule kills most transients. A 3-retry-failure smoke test is either:

  1. A real regression - block the deploy.
  2. A genuinely flaky test - quarantine + investigate via flaky-test-quarantine (in the qa-flake-triage plugin).

Don't suppress failures by raising the retry count.

Step 5 - Smoke suite curation

The smoke suite must stay fast. Add tests deliberately:

Add a test whenDon't add when
A critical journey doesn't have smoke coverageCoverage exists; just want more tests
A SEV-1+ incident's would-have-caught test fitsThe test is broader than smoke (move to regression)
A new feature's primary flow lacks smokeThe test is slow (>60s; move to regression)

Quarterly review: drop smoke tests that haven't caught a real regression in N quarters and aren't covering a new business value.

Step 6 - CI integration

# .github/workflows/smoke-gate.yml
name: smoke-gate
on:
  push:
    branches: [main]
  pull_request:

jobs:
  smoke:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    timeout-minutes: 10   # hard cap - smoke must finish in 10 min
    steps:
      - uses: actions/checkout@v5
      - uses: actions/setup-node@v4
        with: { node-version: '20' }
      - run: npm ci
      - run: npx playwright install --with-deps chromium
      - name: Deploy ephemeral env (PR only)
        if: github.event_name == 'pull_request'
        run: ./scripts/deploy-ephemeral.sh ${{ github.head_ref }}
      - name: Run smoke
        env:
          SMOKE_USER_EMAIL: ${{ secrets.SMOKE_USER_EMAIL }}
          SMOKE_USER_PASSWORD: ${{ secrets.SMOKE_USER_PASSWORD }}
          BASE_URL: ${{ steps.deploy.outputs.url || 'https://staging.example.com' }}
        run: npx playwright test e2e/smoke/ --retries=2
      - uses: actions/upload-artifact@v4
        if: always()
        with:
          name: smoke-results
          path: playwright-report/

timeout-minutes: 10 is the hard fail-fast - if smoke takes longer, something's wrong (the suite has bloated; deploy is slow).

Anti-patterns

Anti-patternWhy it failsFix
50-test smoke suiteNot smoke; full regression. Per-deploy gate becomes 30-min runtime.Cap at 15 tests (Step 1).
Smoke tests that create / delete dataPollute prod / test env; flake on parallel runs.Read-only flows; pre-seeded data (Step 2).
Smoke tests that hit production with real moneyReal charges; PII; compliance risk.Test-mode payment; synthetic accounts (Step 2 example).
Suppressing failures via 5+ retriesReal regressions hide; "smoke green" loses meaning.2 retries max; quarantine repeat failures (Step 4).
Adding tests to smoke "for safety" without removing slow onesSuite bloats; per-deploy time grows.Curation rule (Step 5).
Smoke that asserts every detailFragile to copy / layout changes; flaky.Existence + status + key text only (Step 2).

Limitations

  • Smoke ≠ regression. A green smoke doesn't prove the system works; it proves the critical paths work. Pair with full regression at lower frequency.
  • Pre-seeded data dependencies. If SMOKE-001 SKU is deleted or the synthetic account is locked, smoke fails for the wrong reason. Monitor the test-data state.
  • Test-mode payment vs real. Stripe / PayPal test mode behaves ~95% like prod; some prod-only edge cases need separate verification.
  • Mobile smoke is different. Mobile uses mobile-device-matrix-toolkit (in the qa-mobile plugin) smoke tier; same principle, different platform.

References

  • flaky-test-quarantine - handles repeat-failing smoke tests.
  • prod-canary-validator - downstream gate after smoke passes.
  • synthetic-monitor-author - same critical journeys, but continuous-in-prod (not per-deploy).

Related 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-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.

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.

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.