### Team Qa
Works with
description: "Orchestrate the QA team through a full testing cycle. Coordinates qa-lead (strategy + test plan) and qa-tester (test case writing + bug reporting) to produce a complete QA package for a
argument-hint: "[sprint | feature: system-name]"
allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Write, Task, AskUserQuestion
AI-first code editor with Composer
Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:
node --versionteam-qaExecute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:
Fetches team-qa from Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios and configures it for Cursor.
The CLI shows a list of agents. Use arrow keys and space to select Cursor:
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
Restart Cursor to activate team-qa. Access via /team-qa in your agent's command palette.
We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.
Skills execute code in your environment. Always review source, verify the publisher, and test in isolation before production.
Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning
Automate repetitive workflows and reduce manual effort
Example
Generate reports, summarize documents, draft communications
Save 3-5 hours per week on routine tasks
Learn new skills, understand complex topics, get expert guidance
Example
Explain concepts, provide examples, suggest learning resources
Accelerate learning and skill development by 2x
Enhance output quality through reviews, suggestions, and refinements
Example
Review drafts, suggest improvements, catch errors
Improve work quality by 30-40% with less effort
0
total installs
0
this week
10.7K
GitHub stars
0
upvotes
Run in your terminal
0
installs
0
this week
10.7K
stars
| name | team-qa |
| description | "Orchestrate the QA team through a full testing cycle. Coordinates qa-lead (strategy + test plan) and qa-tester (test case writing + bug reporting) to produce a complete QA package for a sprint or feature. Covers: test plan generation, test case writing, smoke check gate, manual QA execution, and sign-off report." |
| argument-hint | "[sprint | feature: system-name]" |
| user-invocable | true |
| allowed-tools | Read, Glob, Grep, Write, Task, AskUserQuestion |
| agent | qa-lead |
When this skill is invoked, orchestrate the QA team through a structured testing cycle.
Decision Points: At each phase transition, use AskUserQuestion to present
the user with the subagent's proposals as selectable options. Write the agent's
full analysis in conversation, then capture the decision with concise labels.
The user must approve before moving to the next phase.
Use the Task tool to spawn each team member as a subagent:
subagent_type: qa-lead — Strategy, planning, classification, sign-offsubagent_type: qa-tester — Test case writing and bug report writingAlways provide full context in each agent's prompt (story file paths, QA plan path, scope constraints). Launch independent qa-tester tasks in parallel where possible (e.g., multiple stories in Phase 5 can be scaffolded simultaneously).
Before doing anything else, gather the full scope:
Detect the current sprint or feature scope from the argument:
sprint-03): read all story files in production/sprints/[sprint]/feature: [system-name]: glob story files tagged for that systemproduction/session-state/active.md and production/sprint-status.yaml (if present) to infer the active sprintRead production/stage.txt to confirm the current project phase.
Count stories found and report to the user:
"QA cycle starting for [sprint/feature]. Found [N] stories. Current stage: [stage]. Ready to begin QA strategy?"
Spawn qa-lead via Task to review all in-scope stories and produce a QA strategy.
Prompt the qa-lead to:
Read each story file
Classify each story by type: Logic / Integration / Visual/Feel / UI / Config/Data
Identify which stories require automated test evidence vs. manual QA
Flag any stories with missing acceptance criteria or missing test evidence that would block QA
Estimate manual QA effort (number of test sessions needed)
Check tests/smoke/ for smoke test scenarios; for each, assess whether it can be verified given the current build. Produce a smoke check verdict: PASS / PASS WITH WARNINGS [list] / FAIL [list of failures]
Produce a strategy summary table and smoke check result:
| Story | Type | Automated Required | Manual Required | Blocker? |
|---|
Smoke Check: [PASS / PASS WITH WARNINGS / FAIL] — [details if not PASS]
If the smoke check result is FAIL, the qa-lead must list the failures prominently. QA cannot proceed past the strategy phase with a failed smoke check.
Present the qa-lead's full strategy to the user, then use AskUserQuestion:
question: "QA Strategy Review"
options:
- "Looks good — proceed to test plan"
- "Adjust story types before proceeding"
- "Skip blocked stories and proceed with the rest"
- "Smoke check failed — fix issues and re-run /team-qa"
- "Cancel — resolve blockers first"
If smoke check FAIL: do not proceed to Phase 3. Surface the failures and stop. The user must fix them and re-run /team-qa.
If smoke check PASS WITH WARNINGS: note the warnings for the sign-off report and continue.
If blockers are present: list them explicitly. The user may choose to skip blocked stories or cancel the cycle.
Using the strategy from Phase 2, produce a structured test plan document.
The test plan should cover:
tests/Ask: "May I write the QA plan to production/qa/qa-plan-[sprint]-[date].md?"
Write only after receiving approval.
Smoke check is performed as part of Phase 2 (QA Strategy). If the smoke check returned FAIL in Phase 2, the cycle was stopped there. This phase only runs when the Phase 2 smoke check was PASS or PASS WITH WARNINGS.
For each story requiring manual QA (Visual/Feel, UI, Integration without automated tests):
Spawn qa-tester via Task for each story (run in parallel where possible), providing:
Each test case set should include:
Present the test cases to the user for review before execution. Group by story.
Use AskUserQuestion per story group (batched 3-4 at a time):
question: "Test cases ready for [Story Group]. Review before manual QA begins?"
options:
- "Approved — begin manual QA for these stories"
- "Revise test cases for [story name]"
- "Skip manual QA for [story name] — not ready"
Walk through each story in the approved manual QA list.
Batch stories into groups of 3-4 and use AskUserQuestion for each:
question: "Manual QA — [Story Title]\n[brief description of what to test]"
options:
- "PASS — all acceptance criteria verified"
- "PASS WITH NOTES — minor issues found (describe after)"
- "FAIL — criteria not met (describe after)"
- "BLOCKED — cannot test yet (reason)"
After each FAIL result: use AskUserQuestion to collect the failure description, then spawn qa-tester via Task to write a formal bug report in production/qa/bugs/.
Bug report naming: BUG-[NNN]-[short-slug].md (increment NNN from existing bugs in the directory).
After collecting all results, summarize:
Spawn qa-lead via Task to produce the sign-off report using all results from Phases 4–6.
The sign-off report format:
## QA Sign-Off Report: [Sprint/Feature]
**Date**: [date]
**QA Lead sign-off**: [pending]
### Test Coverage Summary
| Story | Type | Auto Test | Manual QA | Result |
|-------|------|-----------|-----------|--------|
| [title] | Logic | PASS | — | PASS |
| [title] | Visual | — | PASS | PASS |
### Bugs Found
| ID | Story | Severity | Status |
|----|-------|----------|--------|
| BUG-001 | [story] | S2 | Open |
### Verdict: APPROVED / APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS / NOT APPROVED
**Conditions** (if any): [list what must be fixed before the build advances]
### Next Step
[guidance based on verdict]
Verdict rules:
Next step guidance by verdict:
/gate-check to validate advancement."/team-qa or targeted manual QA before advancing."Ask: "May I write this QA sign-off report to production/qa/qa-signoff-[sprint]-[date].md?"
Write only after receiving approval.
If any spawned agent (via Task) returns BLOCKED, errors, or cannot complete:
Common blockers:
/architecture-decision first/create-storiesA summary covering: stories in scope, smoke check result, manual QA results, bugs filed (with IDs and severities), and the final APPROVED / APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS / NOT APPROVED verdict.
Verdict: COMPLETE — QA cycle finished. Verdict: BLOCKED — smoke check failed or critical blocker prevented cycle completion; partial report produced.
Prerequisites
Time Estimate
15-45 minutes depending on use case complexity
Steps
Common Pitfalls
✓ Do
✗ Don't
💡 Pro Tips
✓ Use when
Use when skill capabilities match your task, clear ROI on time saved, and you can validate outputs. Best for repetitive tasks, learning, and quality improvement.
✗ Avoid when
Avoid when task requires deep expertise you can't validate, involves sensitive decisions, or when learning process is more valuable than speed of completion.
JuliusBrussee/caveman
JuliusBrussee/caveman
whyashthakker/agent-skills-marketing
JuliusBrussee/caveman
whyashthakker/agent-skills-marketing
vercel-labs/skills
team-qa fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
We added team-qa from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.
Useful defaults in team-qa — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: team-qa is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
I recommend team-qa for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.
Registry listing for team-qa matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
team-qa reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
team-qa is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
Keeps context tight: team-qa is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
team-qa reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
showing 1-10 of 52