Install
openclaw skills install afrexai-qa-engineComprehensive QA system for planning strategy, writing tests, analyzing coverage, automating pipelines, performance and security testing, defect triage, and...
openclaw skills install afrexai-qa-engineComplete quality assurance system — from test strategy to automation frameworks, coverage analysis, and release readiness. Works for any stack, any team size.
Before writing any tests, define the strategy:
# test-strategy.yaml
project: "[name]"
scope: "[feature/module/full product]"
risk_level: high | medium | low
stack:
language: "[TypeScript/Python/Java/Go]"
framework: "[React/Express/Django/Spring]"
test_runner: "[Jest/Vitest/pytest/JUnit/Go test]"
e2e_tool: "[Playwright/Cypress/Selenium]"
# What are we testing?
test_scope:
- area: "[e.g., Auth module]"
risk: high
test_types: [unit, integration, e2e]
priority: 1
- area: "[e.g., Settings page]"
risk: low
test_types: [unit]
priority: 3
# What's NOT in scope (and why)
exclusions:
- "[e.g., Third-party widget — covered by vendor]"
# Quality targets
targets:
line_coverage: 80
branch_coverage: 70
critical_path_coverage: 100
max_flaky_rate: 2%
max_test_duration_unit: 10ms
max_test_duration_integration: 500ms
max_test_duration_e2e: 30s
Not everything needs the same testing depth. Use the risk matrix:
| Risk Level | Unit Tests | Integration | E2E | Manual/Exploratory |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Critical (payments, auth, data loss) | 95%+ coverage | Full API coverage | Happy + error paths | Exploratory session |
| High (core features, user-facing) | 85%+ coverage | Key integrations | Happy path | Spot check |
| Medium (secondary features) | 70%+ coverage | Critical paths only | Smoke only | On release |
| Low (admin, internal tools) | 50%+ coverage | None | None | None |
Follow the pyramid — not the ice cream cone:
/ E2E \ ← Few (5-10%) — slow, expensive, brittle
/ Integr. \ ← Some (15-25%) — API contracts, DB queries
/ Unit \ ← Many (65-80%) — fast, isolated, cheap
Anti-pattern: Ice cream cone (mostly E2E, few unit tests) = slow CI, flaky builds, expensive maintenance.
Decision rule: Can this be tested at a lower level? → Test it there.
Every unit test follows AAA (Arrange-Act-Assert):
1. ARRANGE — Set up test data, mocks, state
2. ACT — Call the function/method under test
3. ASSERT — Verify the output matches expectations
For each function/method, verify:
Mock these:
DO NOT mock these:
Mock rule of thumb: If removing the mock would make the test hit the network, file system, or database → mock it. Otherwise → don't.
Use the pattern: [unit] [scenario] [expected result]
Examples:
calculateTotal returns 0 for empty cartvalidateEmail throws for missing @ symbolparseDate handles ISO 8601 with timezone offsetMetrics that matter:
| Metric | Target | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Line coverage | 80%+ | Basic completeness |
| Branch coverage | 70%+ | Catches missed if/else paths |
| Function coverage | 90%+ | Ensures all functions are tested |
| Critical path coverage | 100% | Business-critical code fully verified |
Coverage traps to avoid:
Integration tests verify that components work TOGETHER:
Pattern 1: API Contract Testing
1. Start test server (or use supertest/httptest)
2. Send HTTP request with specific payload
3. Assert: status code, response body shape, headers
4. Assert: database state changed correctly
5. Assert: side effects triggered (emails, events)
Pattern 2: Database Integration
1. Start test database (SQLite in-memory or test container)
2. Run migrations
3. Seed test data
4. Execute query/operation
5. Assert: data matches expectations
6. Teardown (truncate or rollback transaction)
Pattern 3: External Service
1. Record real API response (VCR/nock/wiremock)
2. Replay recorded response in tests
3. Assert: your code handles the response correctly
4. Also test: timeout, 500 error, malformed response
E2E tests verify complete user journeys. They're expensive — be strategic:
Test these E2E:
DON'T test these E2E:
test_name: "[User journey name]"
preconditions:
- "[User is logged in]"
- "[Product exists in catalog]"
steps:
- action: "Navigate to /products"
verify: "Product list is visible"
- action: "Click 'Add to Cart' on Product A"
verify: "Cart badge shows 1"
- action: "Click 'Checkout'"
verify: "Checkout form displayed"
- action: "Fill payment details and submit"
verify: "Order confirmation page with order ID"
postconditions:
- "Order exists in database with status 'paid'"
- "Confirmation email sent"
max_duration: 30s
Flaky tests are the #1 CI killer. Handle them:
Flaky Test Triage:
Flaky rate target: < 2% of total test runs
| Type | Purpose | When |
|---|---|---|
| Load test | Normal traffic handling | Before every release |
| Stress test | Find breaking point | Quarterly or before scaling |
| Spike test | Sudden traffic burst | Before marketing campaigns |
| Soak test | Memory leaks over time | Monthly or after major changes |
| Capacity test | Max users/throughput | Planning infrastructure |
test_name: "[API/Page] Load Test"
target: "[URL or endpoint]"
baseline:
p50_response: "[current p50 ms]"
p95_response: "[current p95 ms]"
p99_response: "[current p99 ms]"
error_rate: "[current %]"
scenarios:
- name: "Normal load"
vus: 50 # virtual users
duration: 5m
ramp_up: 30s
thresholds:
p95_response: "< 500ms"
error_rate: "< 1%"
- name: "Peak load"
vus: 200
duration: 10m
ramp_up: 1m
thresholds:
p95_response: "< 2000ms"
error_rate: "< 5%"
- name: "Stress test"
vus: 500
duration: 5m
ramp_up: 2m
# Find the breaking point — no thresholds, observe
Track these per endpoint:
| Metric | Green | Yellow | Red |
|---|---|---|---|
| p50 response | < 200ms | 200-500ms | > 500ms |
| p95 response | < 500ms | 500ms-2s | > 2s |
| p99 response | < 1s | 1-5s | > 5s |
| Error rate | < 0.1% | 0.1-1% | > 1% |
| Throughput | > baseline | 80-100% baseline | < 80% |
| CPU usage | < 60% | 60-80% | > 80% |
| Memory usage | < 70% | 70-85% | > 85% |
| DB query time | < 50ms avg | 50-200ms | > 200ms |
| Symptom | Likely Cause | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Slow API response | N+1 queries | Batch/join queries |
| Memory climbing | Object retention | Profile heap, fix leaks |
| Timeout spikes | Connection pool exhaustion | Increase pool, add queuing |
| Slow page load | Large bundle | Code split, lazy load |
| DB bottleneck | Missing index | Add index on WHERE/JOIN columns |
| High CPU | Synchronous compute | Move to worker/queue |
Run through these for every feature/release:
Authentication & Authorization:
Input Validation:
../Data Protection:
*)Infrastructure:
| # | Vulnerability | Test For |
|---|---|---|
| A01 | Broken Access Control | Access other users' resources, bypass role checks |
| A02 | Cryptographic Failures | Weak hashing, plaintext secrets, expired certs |
| A03 | Injection | SQL, XSS, command, LDAP injection |
| A04 | Insecure Design | Business logic flaws, missing rate limits |
| A05 | Security Misconfiguration | Default creds, verbose errors, open ports |
| A06 | Vulnerable Components | Outdated deps with known CVEs |
| A07 | Authentication Failures | Brute force, weak passwords, session fixation |
| A08 | Data Integrity Failures | Unsigned updates, CI/CD pipeline injection |
| A09 | Logging Failures | Missing audit logs, no alerting on breaches |
| A10 | SSRF | Internal network access via user-controlled URLs |
bug_id: "[auto or manual]"
title: "[Short description of the bug]"
severity: P0-critical | P1-high | P2-medium | P3-low
reporter: "[name]"
date: "[YYYY-MM-DD]"
environment:
os: "[OS + version]"
browser: "[Browser + version]"
app_version: "[version/commit]"
steps_to_reproduce:
1. "[Step 1]"
2. "[Step 2]"
3. "[Step 3]"
expected_result: "[What should happen]"
actual_result: "[What actually happens]"
frequency: "always | intermittent | once"
screenshots: "[links]"
logs: "[relevant log output]"
| Level | Definition | SLA | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| P0 Critical | System down, data loss, security breach | Fix in 4 hours | Payment processing broken |
| P1 High | Major feature broken, no workaround | Fix in 24 hours | Users can't login |
| P2 Medium | Feature broken with workaround | Fix this sprint | Search returns wrong results sometimes |
| P3 Low | Minor issue, cosmetic | Fix when convenient | Button alignment off by 2px |
1. Review all new bugs (unassigned)
2. For each bug:
a. Reproduce — can you trigger it?
b. Classify severity (P0-P3)
c. Estimate fix effort (S/M/L)
d. Assign to owner + sprint
e. Link to related bugs/stories
3. Review P0/P1 bugs from last week — are they fixed?
4. Close bugs that can't be reproduced (after 2 attempts)
5. Update metrics dashboard
Track weekly:
| Metric | Formula | Target |
|---|---|---|
| Bug escape rate | Bugs found in prod / total bugs | < 10% |
| Mean time to fix (P0) | Avg hours from report to deploy | < 8 hours |
| Mean time to fix (P1) | Avg hours from report to deploy | < 48 hours |
| Bug reopen rate | Reopened bugs / closed bugs | < 5% |
| Test escape analysis | Bugs that SHOULD have been caught | Track & reduce |
| Open bug count | Total open by severity | Trending down |
Before shipping to production:
Code Quality:
Coverage & Quality Gates:
Performance:
Security:
Operational Readiness:
Score 0-100 across 5 dimensions:
| Dimension | Weight | Scoring |
|---|---|---|
| Test coverage | 25% | 100 if targets met, -10 per gap area |
| Bug status | 25% | 100 if 0 P0/P1, -20 per open P0, -10 per P1 |
| Performance | 20% | 100 if all green, -15 per yellow, -30 per red |
| Security | 20% | 100 if clean, -25 per critical, -15 per high |
| Operational | 10% | 100 if checklist complete, -20 per missing item |
Ship threshold: ≥ 80 overall, no dimension below 60
Configure these gates in your CI pipeline:
# Quality gate configuration
gates:
- name: "Lint"
stage: pre-commit
command: "npm run lint"
blocking: true
- name: "Unit Tests"
stage: commit
command: "npm test -- --coverage"
blocking: true
thresholds:
pass_rate: 100%
coverage_line: 80%
coverage_branch: 70%
- name: "Integration Tests"
stage: merge
command: "npm run test:integration"
blocking: true
thresholds:
pass_rate: 100%
- name: "Security Scan"
stage: merge
command: "npm audit --audit-level=high"
blocking: true
- name: "E2E Smoke"
stage: staging
command: "npm run test:e2e:smoke"
blocking: true
thresholds:
pass_rate: 100%
- name: "Performance"
stage: staging
command: "npm run test:perf"
blocking: false # Alert only
thresholds:
p95_regression: 20%
Rate your team 1-5:
| Level | Description | Characteristics |
|---|---|---|
| 1 — Manual | All testing is manual | No automation, long release cycles |
| 2 — Reactive | Some unit tests, no CI | Tests written after bugs, not before |
| 3 — Structured | Test pyramid, CI pipeline | Unit + integration, automated on push |
| 4 — Proactive | Full automation, quality gates | E2E + perf + security in pipeline, TDD |
| 5 — Optimized | Self-healing, predictive | Flaky auto-quarantine, AI-assisted testing, continuous deployment |
review_date: "[YYYY-MM-DD]"
metrics:
total_tests: 0
pass_rate_7d: "0%"
flaky_tests: 0
flaky_rate: "0%"
avg_suite_duration: "0s"
coverage_line: "0%"
coverage_branch: "0%"
actions:
quarantined: [] # Tests moved to flaky suite
deleted: [] # Tests removed (obsolete/unfixable)
fixed: [] # Flaky tests fixed this week
added: [] # New tests added
trends:
coverage_delta: "+0%" # vs last week
flaky_delta: "+0" # vs last week
duration_delta: "+0s" # vs last week
notes: ""
| Anti-Pattern | Problem | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Sleeping tests | sleep(2000) instead of waiting | Use explicit waits/polling |
| Test interdependence | Test B relies on Test A's state | Isolate — each test sets up its own state |
| Assertionless tests | Test runs code but doesn't assert | Add meaningful assertions |
| Brittle selectors | CSS selectors that break on redesign | Use data-testid or aria roles |
| God test | One test verifying 20 things | Split into focused tests |
| Mock overload | Everything mocked, nothing real tested | Only mock external boundaries |
| Hardcoded data | Tests break when seed data changes | Use factories/builders |
| Ignoring test output | "It passed, ship it" | Review WHY it passed — is the assertion meaningful? |
Tell the agent: