test-like-human

name	test-like-human
description	Use when testing a pull request from a real user perspective. Follow PR testing instructions, simulate realistic scenarios, and produce a human-readable report.
license	MIT
metadata	{"author":"Petr Král (pekral.cz)"}

Constraints

• This skill is stack-agnostic. Detect the project's language, framework, and toolchain in step 1 and choose tools from that detection; the Laravel/PHP commands below are conditional examples for Laravel projects, not defaults. When the project IS Laravel, the Laravel-specific guidance (tinker / artisan / APP_ENV / FormRequest) stays fully in force.
• Apply the project's own conventions where they exist. When a referenced rule or skill is present in the current project, follow it: @rules/php/core-standards.mdc, @rules/git/general.mdc, @rules/jira/general.mdc, @rules/reports/general.mdc. If a referenced @rules/* file or linked skill (pr-summary, code-review*) does not exist in the current project, skip it and produce the equivalent output directly — never fail because a Laravel-specific dependency is missing.
• @rules/reports/general.mdc (when present): the tracker comment delegated to @skills/pr-summary/SKILL.md and any per-scenario annotations folded into it must be written in the language of the source assignment. The in-conversation dev-team follow-up may stay in English.
• Output must be human-readable (no technical logs or internal details)
• Focus on user-visible behavior, not implementation

Use when

• You need to validate a pull request from a real user perspective
• You want structured testing based on PR instructions

This skill runs on demand only — never auto-chained from @skills/code-review/SKILL.md, @skills/code-review-github/SKILL.md, @skills/code-review-jira/SKILL.md, @skills/process-code-review/SKILL.md, or @skills/resolve-issue/SKILL.md. Invoke it explicitly via /test-like-human (or the equivalent in-conversation request) after the CR has been published, when a real user-perspective validation is genuinely wanted.

Required approach

1. Understand the context

• Load the pull request (prefer gh, fallback to MCP tools)
• Read description, comments, and discussions
• Identify the expected final behavior
• Detect the project type and toolchain before choosing any tool: the primary language and framework, how the app is started/served, where env/config lives, and which REPL/console the project ships. This detection drives every tool choice below.
  • Examples: Laravel/PHP → php artisan serve, .env, php artisan tinker; Node → npm/pnpm scripts, .env / process.env, the node REPL; Python → manage.py shell / python, env vars; Ruby → rails console.
  • Universal tools stay constant across stacks: curl for HTTP APIs, a browser for UI. Only the backend REPL and run commands are stack-specific.

2. Extract testing instructions

• Locate "Testing Recommendations"
• Extract all scenarios
• Do not invent new requirements unless needed to verify suspicious behavior
• Identify the gating mechanism for each scenario and record the exact toggle plus required value needed to reach the changed branch (feature-flag name + value, ENV switch, query string, admin toggle, allow-listed account). This recorded toggle feeds both the step-3 reachability pre-check and the Available behind / first How to test step in the published report.
• Manual reproduction is the primary output of this skill. Mapping each scenario to automated test coverage is a separate completeness check that must not replace the manual run:
  • Map each scenario to an existing automated test; if none exists, note the gap.
  • When the assignment does not restrict it, write the missing test before the run is considered complete.
  • When the assignment explicitly says "test as a human / do not run automated tests", perform the manual run and only note the missing coverage — do not run or extend the suite.
  • Build/CI-level scenarios (e.g. composer build, coverage thresholds) are covered by the project's CI pipeline and need no duplicate test.

3. Choose testing method per scenario

Reachability pre-check (before testing each scenario). Confirm the changed branch is actually reachable in the local/test environment. Environment guards, feature flags, allow-listed accounts, and ENV switches can disable the change locally, so a "PASS" might exercise nothing related to the change — a false positive. Examples of gates: Laravel if (App::environment('production')), a config() / feature-flag check; elsewhere NODE_ENV, build-time flags, process.env.*, LaunchDarkly. If the scenario is gated, either:

• enable the gate (flip the flag, override the ENV, use an allow-listed identity), or
• call the affected method directly with the gate forced (e.g. Laravel php artisan tinker; otherwise the stack's REPL).

Otherwise a "PASS" does not test anything the change touched.

Then pick the method per scenario:

• UI → browser tools
• API → curl is mandatory whenever the PR changes the API (see below); otherwise curl or equivalent (prefer API docs if available)
• Backend logic → the stack's REPL (Laravel: php artisan tinker; Node: node; Python: python / manage.py shell; Ruby: rails console)
• CLI → terminal commands

Backend REPL / script setup. Running backend verification through the project's REPL or a throwaway script may require:

• overriding the env so the gated branch runs (Laravel example: APP_ENV=testing; generally, switching the runtime environment),
• raised limits for heavy operations (Laravel/PHP example: memory_limit; generally, memory/time limits),
• a local substitute for production infrastructure that does not run locally (managed DB, cloud SDK, queues).

Use throwaway data and clean up afterwards: delete the artifacts and restore the branch / working tree to its original state.

API changes → mandatory curl verification. If the PR changes the API — route/endpoint definitions, controllers/handlers, the validation layer, response/serialization, or status codes (Laravel examples: routes/api.php, API controllers, FormRequest, API Resources) — curl verification is required, not optional:

• For each changed/added endpoint, issue a real curl request against the local environment with the correct HTTP method, authentication (token / API key), headers, and body.
• Verify the contract: status code, response shape and types, validation errors on invalid input, and authorization (no token / foreign token); check idempotency where it applies.
• Cover the happy path and edge/negative cases (missing required field, unauthorized access) — not just 200.
• If public API docs exist, verify against them and flag any mismatch between code and docs (code is the source of truth).

Do not over-test — focus on meaningful validation.

4. Execute as a senior tester

For each scenario, think:

• what the user tries to achieve
• where the flow could fail or confuse
• whether behavior feels correct and trustworthy
• for backend changes: whether data ends in the correct state

5. Validate results

• Compare expected vs actual behavior
• Confirm the observed behavior was caused by the changed code, not an unrelated branch or an environment that skips the change. Where it makes sense, verify the triple:
  • positive — the fix works,
  • negative — a different error / input does not behave like the handled case and does not pass silently,
  • legacy preservation — behavior outside the gate stays unchanged.
• Identify inconsistencies, confusion, or broken flows
• Do not expose technical details in conclusions

Report format

Local in-conversation report only — use the template defined in templates/test-report.md for the agent's own working notes (raw scenario results, observations, blockers). This template must not be posted to any tracker.

Deliver

• Reference the pull request
• Include all tested scenarios
• Provide overall summary
• Highlight failed / blocked / unclear cases
• Recommend whether the change is ready from a user perspective

After completion

The tracker-facing output is produced by @skills/pr-summary/SKILL.md when it exists in the project. This skill does not author its own JIRA / GitHub comment template — that responsibility belongs to pr-summary, which already enforces the uniform Authors / Available behind / Summary of changes / How to test contract. When pr-summary is not present in the current project, produce the equivalent tracker comment directly, following the same contract — do not skip the report and do not fail on the missing dependency.

1. Hand the raw test-report markdown (from templates/test-report.md) and the per-scenario results to @skills/pr-summary/SKILL.md as input context for the publishing step (or, when absent, to your direct report).
2. Invoke pr-summary with the target tracker matching the PR origin (GitHub for GitHub PRs, JIRA for JIRA-tracked work).
3. The published tracker comment must:
   • credit the real change author(s) in the Authors line — resolved from git history and PR metadata, never the agent / tester identity running this skill;
   • include the Available behind line whenever the verified change is reachable only behind a test parameter (feature flag, ENV switch, query string, admin toggle, allow-listed account) — pass the gating toggle and required value recorded in step 2 so its first How to test step enables it;
   • in the How to test section, fold the test scenarios actually executed by this skill (including pass / fail / blocked / unclear status next to each step, and the curl request + key contract checks for every API endpoint touched), so the published comment reflects real verification work rather than restating the PR description.
4. Append a short non-public follow-up message to the dev team (in conversation, not on the tracker) listing failed / blocked / unclear scenarios with enough technical detail to act on them. That message is for the developers — it complements the pr-summary tracker comment, it does not replace it.