skill-matrix-author

Overview

Per ISTQB CTAL-TM v3.0 section 3.1.3, "test management needs to assess the existing test team skills and compare these with the required skills, which may be documented in a skills matrix" (CTAL-TM v3.0 §3.1.3, 2024; syllabus in References). This skill produces that matrix: rows are team members, columns are competency dimensions, and each cell carries a proficiency level plus the evidence that justifies it.

The output is two artifacts: the matrix (current state) and the gap analysis (matrix compared against the skills the team's projects require). The matrix without the comparison is a wall chart; the comparison is what drives training, hiring, and allocation decisions.

When to use

• A QA manager inherits or builds a team and needs a current-state capability map.
• The team's work is changing (new tech stack, new test level, new domain) and the manager must know whether the team can cover it.
• Before quarterly planning: the matrix plus gap analysis feeds the training budget and the hiring case.
• Before a training-budget decision or opening a requisition: Step 7's ranked gap report is the evidence the manager takes into those conversations.

Do not use this skill to:

• Score job candidates - that is qa-hiring-kit's rubric stage (this plugin; point-in-time, per-candidate, anchored to interview questions).
• Plan one new hire's first 90 days - that is qa-hiring-kit's onboarding stage (this plugin).
• Write individual performance feedback. The matrix describes capability, not performance; conflating them poisons the data (see Anti-patterns).

Step 1 - Capture the inputs

Halt with MISSING_REQUIRED_SKILLS_CONTEXT if no test strategy or project context is supplied: a matrix with no "required" column cannot produce a gap analysis, only an inventory.

Step 2 - Pick the competency dimensions

CTAL-TM v3.0 section 3.1.1 classifies skills into four areas of competence (after Sonntag & Schmidt-Rathjens 2005 and Erpenbeck & von Rosenstiel 2017, the model the syllabus adopts):

1. Professional competence - "skills to perform specialized tasks": test techniques, technological and business expertise in the application domain, project management skills.
2. Methodological competence - "general skills that a person can use independently in a domain": analytical, conceptual, and judgmental skills.
3. Social competence - communication, cooperation, and conflict management; "they enable one to relate to others in order to act appropriately in a given situation".
4. Personal competence - "the ability and willingness to develop oneself": self-management, reliability, resilience, ability to receive criticism, openness to change.

(All four definitions: CTAL-TM v3.0 §3.1.1.)

Expand professional competence into 4 - 8 team-specific columns. CTAL-TM 3.1.2 maps skills to test activities - test planning needs conceptual strategy knowledge, test analysis needs analytical skill on the test basis and product risks, test implementation needs "technical expertise for test script programming and setting up test environments", test execution needs expertise in automated execution, exploratory testing, and result evaluation (§3.1.2). A typical web-product team lands on columns like: test design techniques, exploratory testing, test automation (team's framework), API testing, CI pipeline ownership, domain knowledge, performance testing, accessibility testing.

Keep methodological, social, and personal competence as 1 - 2 columns each, not expanded per sub-skill. The matrix is a management instrument, not a psychometric one; 8 - 12 total columns is the usable ceiling.

Step 3 - Define the proficiency scale with evidence rules

The syllabus prescribes assessment techniques, not a numeric scale; the 0 - 3 scale below is a working team default, not an ISTQB artifact:

Evidence rules follow CTAL-TM 3.1.3, which says professional and methodological competence "can be assessed by demonstrating typical test tasks": outlining a test strategy and discussing feedback, reviewing the test basis and communicating findings, determining test techniques for a given context, applying test techniques, and writing a test completion report that assesses results. It adds that "skills can be assessed through external credentials, certifications, work experience, and degrees" (§3.1.3).

The load-bearing rule: no cell above level 1 on self-assessment alone. A level-2 or level-3 cell must name at least one artifact or observed demonstration. Self-assessment seeds the draft; evidence locks the value.

Step 4 - Fill the matrix

One row per member, one column per dimension. Each cell is a 0 - 3 level, and every cell above 1 carries a footnote naming its evidence. Add a final team-need row per column (req. / have): the level the team needs in at least N people against what it has. Minimal shape:

| Member | Test design | Playwright automation | Perf (k6) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anna (lead) | 3 [^a1] | 2 [^a3] | 1 |
| Boris | 2 [^b1] | 3 [^b2] | 0 |
| **Team need (req. / have)** | 2 in 3+ / have 3 | 2 in 3+ / have 3 | 2 in 2+ / **have 1** |

[^a1]: Authored the 2026 checkout test strategy; ran the team's test-design workshop.

The footnote-per-cell convention is what makes the matrix auditable: anyone can challenge a 3 by reading its evidence. See references/skill-matrix-example.md for the full 5-person matrix with every professional-competence column and evidence footnote.

Step 5 - Derive the gap analysis

For each column, set the required level and depth ("level 2 in at least 3 people") from the Step 1 context, then compare. CTAL-TM 3.1.4 frames this exactly: "identify necessary development needs by comparing required with available skills in a skills matrix" (§3.1.4). Classify each gap:

In the worked example: performance testing is a bus-factor gap (Dana alone at level 2 against a need of 2 people), and the matrix shows no capability gap. That one row is the actionable output of the whole exercise.

Step 6 - Attach development options per gap

For each gap, list candidate development approaches. CTAL-TM 3.1.4 enumerates five: training and education, self-study, peer learning, mentoring or coaching, and training on the job - and notes they are not equally effective per competence area: "self-study and training, for example, are well suited for developing professional and methodological competence", while for social and personal competence "it is recommended to use approaches such as training and coaching, which are often more promising than self-study" (§3.1.4).

Step 7 - Prioritize gaps against the roadmap and recommend closing moves

The matrix plus classification is still an inventory until it meets demand. This step joins supply (the matrix) against demand (the roadmap) and emits the report the manager takes into planning, budget, or requisition conversations.

7a - Extract demand from the roadmap. Read the supplied roadmap, test strategy, or quarter plan. For each roadmap item, list the competencies it demands and the depth (how many people, at what level, by when). Per CTAL-TM 3.1.2, required skills follow from the project context - system domain, architecture and technologies, and SDLC - not from a generic checklist. Roadmap items whose competency demand cannot be inferred go into an UNMAPPED ROADMAP ITEMS list rather than being guessed. No roadmap or test-needs input, no gap report - a matrix alone yields an inventory, not gaps; halt with MISSING_DEMAND_INPUT.

7b - Rank the gaps. Order by: (1) roadmap proximity (a gap blocking next quarter outranks one blocking H2); (2) gap class (capability > bus-factor > coverage, because lead time to close differs); (3) blast radius of the roadmap items affected. Emit the ranking with the reasoning visible, not just the order.

7c - Recommend a closing move per gap, stating the heuristic with each recommendation:

• Train / peer-learn when an adjacent skill exists in-team at level 2+ and the deadline allows a ramp (coverage and bus-factor gaps, typically).
• Hire when it is a capability gap on a sustained need with no in-team seed skill, or when training demand exceeds the team's absorptive capacity for the window.
• External expert / contract for a one-off need; CTAL-TM 3.1 notes bringing in external experts for tasks beyond the team's capabilities.

7d - Emit the gap report (docs/capability-gap-report-<YYYY-MM-DD>.md): (1) inputs block naming the matrix file, its date, and the roadmap source; (2) ranked gap table (gap, class, roadmap items blocked, deadline, evidence row / column reference); (3) per-gap recommendation (move, rationale, first concrete step, owner suggestion); (4) UNMAPPED ROADMAP ITEMS; (5) a "not considered" section (individual performance, compensation, vendor selection).

Gap-analysis guardrails:

• Never analyze a self-assessment-only matrix. Cells above level 1 with no artifact citations or observation notes mean the Step 3 evidence rule was skipped; fix the matrix first and name the offending cells.
• Mark stale matrices (older than ~2 quarters, or predating a team change named in the roadmap) and recommend re-assessment; do not silently analyze on top.
• Never rank individuals. The unit of analysis is the capability column, not the person; "who is the weakest tester" is a performance question and out of scope.
• Never invent budget, salary, or market-availability figures for the train-vs-hire comparison; mark them [DATA NOT SUPPLIED].

Anti-patterns

Limitations

• Evidence quality varies by competence area. Professional competence has artifacts; social and personal competence rely on observed behavior, which CTAL-TM 3.1.3 supports via demonstration and retrospective feedback but which stays more subjective. Mark those cells observed rather than artifact-cited.
• The 0 - 3 scale is a convention, not a standard. ISTQB defines assessment techniques, not levels; teams comparing matrices across orgs cannot assume the numbers align.
• The matrix is sensitive data. Named proficiency levels affect people; restrict circulation to the manager and the member, and anonymize before any wider sharing.
• No psychometric validity. This is a management planning instrument. Team-role models the syllabus mentions (e.g., Belbin's team roles, CTAL-TM 3.1.3) are out of scope here.

Hand-off targets

• A capability gap becomes a hiring case → qa-hiring-kit (this plugin), starting at its JD stage; the matrix's competency vocabulary stays consistent with the kit's rubric reference.
• A gap resolves to training → the matrix owner's growth conversations per member; the member's matrix row seeds the growth agenda.

References

• ISTQB Certified Tester Advanced Level Test Management Syllabus v3.0 (2024-05-03), chapter 3 "Managing the Team", sections 3.1.1 - 3.1.6 - four areas of competence, required-skill analysis, skills-matrix assessment, development approaches: https://astqb.org/assets/documents/ISTQB_CTAL-TM_Syllabus_v3.0.pdf (fetched 2026-06-10).
• ISTQB glossary - skills management terminology: https://glossary.istqb.org/
• qa-hiring-kit (this plugin) - its rubric stage is the point-in-time candidate-scoring counterpart.