Agent-Skills.md

Agent Skills: Gaia Testing

Provides Gaia's formal validation guidance across unit, integration, manual regression, automated regression, and evidence review. Use it by running the test layers required by each task's gates (unit → integration → e2e → manual regression), recording proof labels (e.g. 'curl', 'playwright-mcp') on tasks_complete, and vetoing completion when evidence is missing. Use it when a branch is stable enough for hardening, when high-risk behavior needs targeted early validation, or when release readiness depends on a clear QA signal.

UncategorizedID: frostaura/ai.toolkit.gaia/fa-testing

Repository

frostaura/ai.toolkit.gaia
frostauraLicense: MIT
3026

Install this agent skill to your local

pnpm dlx add-skill https://github.com/frostaura/ai.toolkit.gaia/tree/HEAD/plugins/engineering/skills/fa-testing

Skill Files

Browse the full folder contents for fa-testing.

Download Skill

Loading file tree…

plugins/engineering/skills/fa-testing/SKILL.md

Skill Metadata

Name
fa-testing
Description
Provides Gaia's formal validation guidance across unit, integration, manual regression, automated regression, and evidence review. Use it by running the test layers required by each task's gates (unit → integration → e2e → manual regression), recording proof labels (e.g. 'curl', 'playwright-mcp') on tasks_complete, and vetoing completion when evidence is missing. Use it when a branch is stable enough for hardening, when high-risk behavior needs targeted early validation, or when release readiness depends on a clear QA signal.

Gaia Testing

Scope and when to use

Use this skill to turn validation into explicit evidence and explicit ownership, not just a vague "tests passed" summary.

Use this skill when:

  • a stable branch needs formal validation or regression hardening
  • high-risk behavior needs targeted early QA
  • UI, integration, or user-visible behavior requires direct observation
  • release readiness needs a clear QA outcome with supporting evidence

Do not use this skill when:

  • the branch is too unstable for meaningful validation
  • acceptance criteria are missing and need planning work first
  • the only remaining task is interpreting release gates

Required inputs

  • the branch or deliverable under test
  • acceptance criteria, architecture context, and identified risk areas
  • relevant environments, commands, fixtures, or browser flows
  • existing validation artifacts that should be extended or replaced

Owned outputs

  • validation artifacts and evidence appropriate to the change
  • explicit pass, fail, or blocked outcomes
  • true-owner routing for defects or blockers
  • QA notes that a release reviewer can use directly

Decision tree

  • If the branch is not stable, send it back to engineering.
  • If criteria are missing or contradictory, send the work to planning.
  • If validation reveals design drift, route to architecture.
  • If validation passes, package the evidence for release review.
  • If only targeted early validation is warranted, scope it narrowly and say what remains for full hardening.

Core workflow

  1. Choose the validation layers that match the risk and surface area.
  2. Add or update the required tests, fixtures, or manual validation notes.
  3. Validate user-visible behavior directly when visuals or browser flows matter.
  4. Record pass, fail, or blocked outcomes with evidence and true-owner routing.
  5. Hand successful evidence to release review and unsuccessful evidence to the real failure owner.

Coverage layers

  • use focused unit or structural checks for local logic and small rule changes
  • use integration validation for cross-component behavior and boundaries
  • use browser or manual regression when user-visible flow or visual quality matters
  • scale evidence to the risk of the change instead of chasing raw coverage numbers

Failure recovery

| Failure mode | Recovery | Owner | Escalation | | ---------------- | --------------------------------------------- | ------ | ---------- | | unstable branch | stop formal QA and request stabilization | tester | engineer | | missing criteria | request plan clarification | tester | planner | | design mismatch | surface architecture drift | tester | architect | | weak evidence | strengthen validation before passing the work | tester | stay in QA |

Anti-patterns

  • do not equate DOM presence with user-visible correctness
  • do not hide planning or design defects inside generic failing test notes
  • do not approve a branch with weak or incomplete evidence
  • do not assume automated checks alone are enough for visual or UX-sensitive work

Handoff and downstream impact

  • give release the exact evidence needed for a readiness call
  • give engineering precise reproduction details for implementation defects
  • give planning the missing criteria when validation is blocked by ambiguity
  • give architecture the mismatch when documented behavior and observed behavior diverge

Examples

  • Good fit: review Gaia's rewritten definitions for coherence, line-count compliance, and supporting evidence.
  • Good fit: use browser automation or manual regression notes for user-visible Copilot plugin workflows.
  • Not a fit: decide what the success criteria should be when the plan never defined them.

Completion checklist

  • the outcome is clearly pass, fail, or blocked
  • evidence matches the risk and surface area of the branch
  • the true failure owner is named when the result is not a pass
  • release review can proceed without guessing what QA actually proved

References