| name | qa-ac-analysis |
| description | Reads a ticket's acceptance criteria and surfaces gaps, ambiguity, unstated assumptions, and missing cases - then ranks what to test by risk (severity x priority). Use before writing any tests, to interrogate the spec. Day 1 acceptance-criteria + risk block of the QA Foundational training. |
| argument-hint | [ticket file or pasted acceptance criteria] |
QA Acceptance-Criteria Analysis
Core principle: AI is a spec reader before it's a test writer. Point it at the
acceptance criteria first and let it ask the questions a careful tester would - then
you judge which questions matter. This is shift-left: find holes before code, or
before you waste tests on the wrong things.
Input: a ticket + acceptance criteria (a markdown file or pasted text).
Output: a list of gaps/ambiguities, then a risk ranking of what to test first.
This is not the same as /qa-gap-analysis (which audits an existing test suite).
This skill interrogates the requirements.
Live vs Proposed - know which mode you are in
- Live feature (already built): verify each gap against the running app. For each
AI claim decide - product bug, wrong expectation, or genuine spec gap?
- Proposed feature (not built): pure analysis, nothing to observe. The only check
is judgment about the spec. Do not assert app behavior you cannot see.
State the mode before you start.
Workflow
Pre-flight checks
Run these before starting any work:
playwright-cli --version
playwright-cli install --skills
echo "ac-analysis-$RANDOM"
If playwright-cli is not found, install it first: npm install -g @playwright/cli@latest && playwright-cli install --skills
Use the output from step 3 as your -s= value for every playwright-cli call this run.
Evidence capture: you may save screenshots and walkthrough captures into the .playwright-cli/ directory (e.g. playwright-cli screenshot --filename=.playwright-cli/<name>.png). Embed these in any HTML report generated from this analysis.
To give visibility into the process go ahead and run a background command playwright-cli show so we can see what the agent is doing.
AC Analysis Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Read the ticket and restate what it asks for
- [ ] Step 2: Interrogate the acceptance criteria
- [ ] Step 3: Verify against the app (Live only)
- [ ] Step 4: Rank what to test by risk
- [ ] Step 5: Self-critique
Step 1: Restate the ask
One or two sentences: what change is this, who is it for, what is explicitly in scope.
Note the Feature status (Live / Proposed).
Step 2: Interrogate the acceptance criteria
For each criterion and the gaps between them, ask:
- Ambiguity - words that could mean two things ("at or above" ->
>= or >?).
- Unstated rules - boundaries, limits, formats, required fields the AC assumes.
- Missing states / paths - error cases, empty states, permissions, concurrency.
- Side effects - what else in the system this change touches (existing data,
other features that share it).
- Untestable criteria - anything with no observable oracle.
Output each as: the gap -> the question it raises -> why it matters / who is hurt.
Step 3: Verify against the app (Live features only)
Where you can, check the claim against the running app (using the playwright-cli skill). For each: product bug / wrong expectation / spec gap? Drop "gaps" that are actually already handled.
Step 4: Rank what to test by risk
Use a simple severity x priority model:
- Severity - how badly the customer is affected if it breaks.
- Priority - how much they care / will tolerate it.
Pull in personas if available (see /qa-context-personas): "who is hurt if this
breaks?" Risk is about people, not features. Challenge the reporter's stated priority
when severity says otherwise.
| Gap / area | Severity | Priority | Test first? | Who is hurt |
Step 5: Self-critique
-> STOP. List which gaps you are confident are real, which depend on an unverified
assumption, and any place you may be inventing a requirement the ticket never implied.
Present everything; the tester judges.
Critical rules
- Name Live vs Proposed and never assert behavior you did not observe.
- Distinguish a real spec gap from an assumed requirement.
- Rank by risk, not by what is easy to test; separate severity from stated priority.
- Tie risk to who is hurt (personas), not to feature labels.
Anti-patterns
- Jumping straight to test cases without interrogating the spec.
- Treating every ambiguity as equally important (no risk ranking).
- Asserting "the app does X" for a Proposed feature.
- Accepting the reporter's priority without challenge when severity is high.
