Verifies implementation quality through rigorous, evidence-based adversarial testing.
Install
mkdir -p .claude/skills/qa-trevoke && curl -L -o skill.zip "https://agentskills.codes/api/skills/download/11860" && unzip -o skill.zip -d .claude/skills/qa-trevoke && rm skill.zipInstalls to .claude/skills/qa-trevoke
Activation
This is the description your AI agent reads to decide when to run this skill — the better it matches your request, the more reliably it fires.
Use when implementation is complete and you want to verify quality through adversarial testing that writes code and provides evidenceKey capabilities
- →Find context from requirements and design documents.
- →Run existing test suites.
- →Check acceptance criteria coverage.
- →Write missing tests for identified gaps.
- →Write adversarial tests to find edge cases.
How it works
The skill verifies quality through adversarial testing by finding context, running existing tests, checking acceptance criteria coverage, and writing new tests to uncover bugs and edge cases.
Inputs & outputs
When to use qa
- →Verify feature implementation
- →Write missing tests for coverage
- →Identify edge-case regressions
About this skill
/qa — Adversarial Testing
Overview
QA writes tests and runs them. It provides evidence, not opinions. Every claim is backed by a test or command output.
Core principle: Your job is to break things. Write code. Run it. Show evidence.
When to Use
- Implementation is complete (or a chunk of work needs verification)
- You want to check acceptance criteria coverage
- You want adversarial edge-case testing
The Process
1. Find Context
Look for requirements and design docs in docs/plans/. Read both to understand what was built and what was promised.
2. Run the Existing Test Suite
~/bin/eldev etest -r dot
Actually run it. Report exact output: how many tests, how many pass, how many fail. If any fail, report them immediately — existing regressions are priority one.
3. Check Acceptance Criteria Coverage
Read acceptance criteria from the requirements doc. For each criterion:
- Search for a test that exercises it (
Grepfor keywords) - Read the test — does it actually test what the criterion says?
- Report: covered or gap
| Criterion | Test | Status |
|-----------|------|--------|
| User can activate focus mode | focus-test.el:42 | COVERED |
| Calendar items always visible | (none found) | GAP |
4. Write Missing Tests
For each gap, write the test. Follow existing patterns in the codebase.
Run it. Report whether it passes or fails.
5. Write Adversarial Tests
Actively try to break things. Write actual test code, don't just describe it.
Target areas:
- Nil/empty inputs: What happens with nil arguments, empty strings, empty lists?
- Boundary values: 0, 1, max, min
- Missing state: Required properties absent, buffers killed mid-operation
- Invalid inputs: Wrong types, malformed data
- Repeated calls: What if the function is called twice in a row?
6. Run Everything and Report
~/bin/eldev etest -r dot
Report with evidence — actual test output, not fabricated numbers:
## QA Report
**Test Suite**: [paste actual eldev output]
### Acceptance Criteria Coverage
| Criterion | Test | Status |
|-----------|------|--------|
| ... | ... | ... |
### Tests Written
- [test name]: tests [what] — [PASS/FAIL]
### Failures Found
- [test name]: [what failed]
- **Reproduction**: [exact command or test invocation]
- **Expected**: [what should happen]
- **Actual**: [what happened]
Common Mistakes
| Mistake | Fix |
|---|---|
| Describing tests without writing code | WRITE the test. Create the file. Run it. |
| Fabricating test results | RUN the tests. Paste actual output. |
| Reporting opinions instead of evidence | Every claim needs a test or command output. |
| Suggesting implementation fixes | Report problems with evidence. Fixing is the implementer's job. |
| Categorizing tests instead of running them | Less taxonomy, more eldev etest. |
| Skipping the existing test suite | ALWAYS run the full suite first. Regressions are priority one. |
| Not checking requirements doc | Cross-reference acceptance criteria. That's what "done" means. |
When not to use it
- →When implementation is not complete.
- →When only opinions are required instead of evidence.
- →When suggesting implementation fixes instead of reporting problems.
Limitations
- →Requires implementation to be complete.
- →Every claim must be backed by a test or command output.
- →Does not suggest implementation fixes.
How it compares
This skill focuses on adversarial testing and evidence-backed reporting, actively writing new tests to break the code and providing concrete output, rather than just describing potential issues or relying solely on existing test suites.
Compared to similar skills
qa side by side with the closest alternatives in the catalog.
| Skill | Installs | Updated | Safety | Difficulty |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| qa (this skill) | 0 | 5mo | Review | Advanced |
| python-testing-patterns | 77 | 2mo | Review | Intermediate |
| fix-bug | 11 | 7mo | Review | Intermediate |
| test-fixing | 1 | 9mo | Review | Intermediate |
Try saying
Example prompts that trigger this skill in your AI assistant.
You might also like
python-testing-patterns
wshobson
Implement comprehensive testing strategies with pytest, fixtures, mocking, and test-driven development. Use when writing Python tests, setting up test suites, or implementing testing best practices.
fix-bug
tddworks
Guide for fixing bugs in ClaudeBar following Chicago School TDD and rich domain design. Use this skill when: (1) User reports a bug or unexpected behavior (2) Fixing a defect in existing functionality (3) User asks "fix this bug" or "this doesn't work correctly" (4) Correcting behavior that violates the user's mental model
test-fixing
mhattingpete
Run tests and systematically fix all failing tests using smart error grouping. Use when user asks to fix failing tests, mentions test failures, runs test suite and failures occur, or requests to make tests pass.
fixing-bugs-systematically
CaptainCrouton89
Diagnose and fix bugs through systematic investigation, root cause analysis, and targeted validation. Use when something is broken, errors occur, performance degrades, or unexpected behavior manifests.
moai-workflow-testing
modu-ai
Comprehensive development workflow specialist combining DDD testing, debugging, performance optimization, code review, PR review, and quality assurance into unified development workflows
investigate
MadAppGang
Unified entry point for code investigation. Auto-routes to specialized detective based on query keywords. Use when investigation type is unclear or for general exploration.