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" (ISTQB CTAL-TM Syllabus v3.0, 2024, fetched 2026-06-10). 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.
• As the required input for the team-capability-gap-analyst agent, which prioritizes gaps against a concrete roadmap.

Do not use this skill to:

• Score job candidates - that is hiring-rubric-author (point-in-time, per-candidate, anchored to interview questions).
• Plan one new hire's first 90 days - that is onboarding-plan-author.
• Write individual performance feedback - that is performance-feedback-author. 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

Worked example fragment (5-person team, professional-competence columns shown; req. is the level the team needs in at least N people, derived in Step 5):

# QA team skill matrix - checkout team - 2026-06

Scale: 0 none / 1 aware / 2 practitioner / 3 coach. Cells above 1 cite evidence (footnote).

| Member | Test design | Exploratory | Playwright automation | API testing | Perf (k6) | Domain: payments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anna (lead)  | 3 [^a1] | 2 [^a2] | 2 [^a3] | 2 [^a4] | 1 | 3 [^a5] |
| Boris        | 2 [^b1] | 1       | 3 [^b2] | 2 [^b3] | 0 | 1 |
| Chen         | 2 [^c1] | 3 [^c2] | 1       | 1       | 0 | 2 [^c3] |
| Dana         | 1       | 1       | 2 [^d1] | 3 [^d2] | 2 [^d3] | 1 |
| Emil (new)   | 1       | 2 [^e1] | 1       | 1       | 0 | 0 |
| **Team need (req. / have)** | 2 in 3+ / have 3 | 2 in 2+ / have 3 | 2 in 3+ / have 3 | 2 in 2+ / have 3 | 2 in 2+ / **have 1** | 2 in 2+ / have 2 |

[^a1]: Authored the 2026 checkout test strategy; ran the team's test-design workshop (2026-03).
[^b2]: Owns the Playwright harness; 14 of last 20 framework PRs; coached Dana through fixture refactor.
[^c2]: 31 charter-based sessions logged in 2026-Q1; found 2 of the quarter's 3 P1 escapes.
[^d3]: Built the k6 smoke profile for checkout; single person who has run a load test this year.

The footnote-per-cell convention is what makes the matrix auditable: anyone can challenge a 3 by reading its evidence.

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).

Do not pick the response in this skill. Prioritizing gaps against the roadmap and recommending train-vs-hire is the team-capability-gap-analyst agent's job; this skill ends by handing it a complete, evidence-backed matrix.

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

• Prioritize the gaps against the roadmap, recommend train vs hire → team-capability-gap-analyst (preloads this skill).
• A capability gap becomes a hiring case → qa-jd-author then the qa-hiring structured-interview chain.
• A growth conversation per member → tester-one-on-one-planner; the member's matrix row seeds the growth half of the agenda.
• Level expectations over time → career-ladder-author; the ladder defines progression, the matrix measures today.

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/
• hiring-rubric-author - the point-in-time candidate-scoring counterpart in qa-hiring.
• team-capability-gap-analyst - the sibling agent that consumes this skill's output.