product-test

name	product-test
description	Use to turn a PRD section, user story, feature slice, or behavior description into product test scenarios and pass/fail conditions. Use when the user asks for product testing, acceptance criteria, Given/When/Then scenarios, QA-ready scenarios, pass/fail checks, edge cases, error states, non-functional acceptance checks, or story-level verification.
description_zh	用于将 PRD 片段、用户故事、功能切片或行为描述转成产品测试场景和通过/失败条件；适合"给这个需求写产品测试""给这个需求写验收标准""把这个 story 转成 Given/When/Then""补齐 QA 可测场景、边界条件、错误状态和非功能验收"；触发词：产品测试、验收测试、验收标准、Given When Then、QA交接、测试场景、用户故事、边界条件、错误状态、通过条件
description_en	Use to turn a PRD section, user story, feature slice, or behavior description into product test scenarios and pass/fail conditions.
category	rnd

Product Test

Use this skill to define the observable behavior that must be true for a story or feature to be considered done. It turns product context into concise, testable Given/When/Then scenarios that engineers and QA can verify without guessing intent.

Do not use this skill to write a full PRD, redesign the feature, break work into engineering tasks, write implementation plans, run tests, write automation code, or create exhaustive test suites. Stay focused on product-level acceptance scenarios for a specific story, feature slice, or behavior.

When To Use

• A user story, PRD section, or feature slice already exists.
• The team needs clear pass/fail conditions before or during implementation.
• QA needs explicit happy path, edge case, error state, or non-functional scenarios.
• A story is too vague and needs observable done conditions.

If the feature scope is unclear, ask for the smallest missing context before drafting criteria.

Instructions

1. Confirm the slice: identify the exact story, workflow, user role, or behavior being accepted.
2. Capture inputs and assumptions: list source material, scope boundaries, and missing context.
3. Separate scenario types: cover happy path first, then edge cases, error states, and non-functional expectations.
4. Use Given/When/Then only: each criterion should be independently testable and observable.
5. Describe recovery behavior: when validation fails or a dependency breaks, state what the user sees and how they can recover.
6. Avoid implementation leakage: do not mention internal classes, tables, functions, or code paths unless the acceptance surface is technical by nature.
7. Review for pass/fail clarity: rewrite subjective criteria into measurable outcomes.
8. End with handoff: state what is ready for QA or the implementation team and what still needs clarification.

Output Format

Use references/product-test-template.md as the default structure. Keep scenarios concise and avoid duplicate coverage.

Required Boundaries

• Do not invent product behavior that is not implied by the source material. Mark assumptions clearly.
• Do not convert every possible test case into acceptance criteria; focus on story-level pass/fail behavior.
• Do not include implementation instructions, file names, commands, or detailed QA automation steps.
• Do not use vague outcomes such as "works correctly" or "is user-friendly"; make the observable result explicit.
• If current legal, pricing, policy, or platform behavior affects acceptance, verify sources before relying on it.

Quality Checklist

Before finalizing, verify:

• Criteria map to a specific story, feature slice, or behavior.
• Happy path appears before edge cases and error states.
• Each criterion has one clear observable outcome.
• Error states include user-visible recovery behavior.
• Non-functional criteria are included when relevant.
• Assumptions and open questions are visible.
• No implementation details leak into acceptance criteria.