en un clic
test-plan-score
// Score an existing test plan using the quality rubric without triggering auto-revision. Use for standalone quality assessment of test plans or evaluating test plans created outside the automated generation pipeline.
// Score an existing test plan using the quality rubric without triggering auto-revision. Use for standalone quality assessment of test plans or evaluating test plans created outside the automated generation pipeline.
Generate a test plan from a strategy (RHAISTRAT or RHOAIENG issue), with optional ADR for extra technical depth. Use when starting test planning for a new RHOAI feature with a defined Jira strategy.
Reviews a generated test plan for completeness, consistency, and quality using a 5-criteria rubric. Scores, auto-revises, and re-scores (max 2 cycles). Use for automated quality assessment and iterative improvement of generated test plans.
Generate individual test case files from an existing test plan. Use after test plan approval to generate individual TC specifications with preconditions, steps, and expected results organized by category and priority.
Browser-based UI test execution against live ODH/RHOAI clusters. Loads TCs from a GitHub PR or repo folder via ui_prepare.py, executes each via a persistent Playwright browser, and produces a visual HTML report with PASS/FAIL/BLOCKED/INCOMPLETE verdicts and screenshots. Use for verifying UI test cases against live clusters with visual evidence and screenshot capture.
Publish test plan artifacts to GitHub — creates a branch, commits all artifacts, and opens a PR with optional reviewer assignment. Use after test plan review to make artifacts available for team collaboration and formal review feedback.
Generate executable test automation code from test case specifications with intelligent placement in component or downstream repos. Use after test cases are reviewed to create production-ready pytest code that follows repository conventions.
| name | test-plan-score |
| description | Score an existing test plan using the quality rubric without triggering auto-revision. Use for standalone quality assessment of test plans or evaluating test plans created outside the automated generation pipeline. |
| argument-hint | <feature_dir> |
| user-invocable | true |
| model | sonnet |
| allowedTools | ["Read","Bash","Glob","Skill"] |
Score an existing test plan using the 5-criteria quality rubric (Specificity, Grounding, Scope Fidelity, Actionability, Consistency). This is the user-facing entrypoint for rubric evaluation.
/test-plan-score <feature_dir>
Examples:
/test-plan-score kagenti_agent_templates/test-plan-score mcp_catalogParse $ARGUMENTS to extract:
TestPlan.mdInstall the test-plan package (makes all scripts importable):
(cd $(git -C ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR} rev-parse --show-toplevel) && uv sync --extra dev)
If installation fails, inform the user and do NOT proceed. Once installed, all Python scripts will work from any directory.
<feature_dir>/TestPlan.mdsource_key:
source_key=$(cd $(git -C ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR} rev-parse --show-toplevel) && \
uv run python scripts/frontmatter.py read <feature_dir>/TestPlan.md source_key)
source_key:
# Fetch strategy and save to temporary file
strategy_file=$(mktemp)
(cd $(git -C ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR} rev-parse --show-toplevel) && \
uv run python scripts/fetch_issue.py "$source_key" --output "$strategy_file") || {
echo "Warning: Failed to fetch Jira issue, checking for local file..." >&2
rm -f "$strategy_file"
strategy_file=""
}
# If fetch failed, check for local strategy file
if [ -z "$strategy_file" ] || [ ! -f "$strategy_file" ]; then
local_file="$(git -C ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR} rev-parse --show-toplevel)/artifacts/strat-tasks/${source_key}.md"
if [ -f "$local_file" ]; then
strategy_content=$(cat "$local_file")
else
echo "Warning: Neither Jira API nor local strategy file available. Grounding and scope fidelity will be scored based on plan consistency only." >&2
strategy_content=""
fi
else
strategy_content=$(cat "$strategy_file")
rm "$strategy_file"
fi
If neither Jira API nor local file is available, warn the user and proceed — grounding and scope fidelity will be scored based on plan consistency only.Read the score agent prompt from skills/test-plan-review/prompts/score-agent.md.
Launch a forked score agent with substitutions:
{FEATURE_DIR} = feature directory path{TEST_PLAN_PATH} = <feature_dir>/TestPlan.md{STRATEGY_TEXT} = raw strategy description text from Step 1{CALIBRATION_DIR} = skills/test-plan-review/calibration/Parse the score agent's output and present the results directly to the user:
## Test Plan Score — {feature_name}
### Rubric Scores
| Criterion | Score | Notes |
|-----------|-------|-------|
| Specificity | {n}/2 | {brief rationale} |
| Grounding | {n}/2 | {brief rationale} |
| Scope Fidelity | {n}/2 | {brief rationale} |
| Actionability | {n}/2 | {brief rationale} |
| Consistency | {n}/2 | {brief rationale} |
**Total: {sum}/10**
### Verdict
{If >= 8, no zeros: "**Ready** — proceed to test case generation"}
{If = 7, no zeros: "**Revise** — minor improvements needed. Re-run via `/test-plan-create` flow to apply auto-revision, or invoke the internal `test-plan.review` workflow from automation."}
{If < 7 or any zero: "**Rework** — significant issues. Re-run via `/test-plan-create` flow for remediation, or use automation that calls internal `test-plan.review`."}
### Grounding Cross-Reference
{Include the full grounding cross-reference table from the scorer}
/test-plan-create flow (which calls internal test-plan.review)$ARGUMENTS