payment-flow-tester

name	payment-flow-tester
description	Test authorization, capture, settlement, cancellation, refund, timeout, decline, authentication, webhook delay, and provider outage paths.
version	1.0.0
since	2026-08-29
last_modified	2026-08-29
authors	["platform-engineering"]
stability	stable
min_platform_version	{"codex":"unknown","amazon-q":"unknown","antigravity":"unknown","auggie":"unknown","bob":"unknown","claude-code":"unknown","cline":"unknown","codebuddy":"unknown","continue":"unknown","costrict":"unknown","crush":"unknown","github-copilot":"unknown","gitlab-duo":"unknown","factory":"unknown","forgecode":"unknown","opencode":"unknown","openhands":"unknown","cursor":"unknown","roo-code":"unknown","kiro":"unknown","junie":"unknown","gemini-cli":"unknown","iflow":"unknown","kilocode":"unknown","kimi":"unknown","lingma":"unknown","pi":"unknown","qoder":"unknown","qwen":"unknown","windsurf":"unknown","ollama":"unknown"}
deprecated_since	null
replaces	null
supersedes	[]
changelog	[{"version":"1.0.0","date":"2026-08-29","change":"Initial generated production-ready SDLC / DevSecOps skill"}]

Payment Flow Tester

Purpose

Design and review payment tests across authorization, capture, settlement, cancellation, refund, timeout, decline, authentication challenge, webhook delay, and provider outage paths. Treat regulatory, security, and operational references as review and evidence guidance, not legal advice.

Goal and behavioral contract

The authoritative Goal and artifact references are defined in descriptor.yaml. Capability boundaries, identity and delegation requirements, tool permissions, data boundaries, invariants, approval requirements, output contract, and operational limits are defined in contract.yaml. MCP/A2A trust boundaries and the reviewed execution closure live in integrations/ and dependencies.yaml; ASPS and assurance requirements live in assurance.yaml.

Treat those declarations as mandatory execution constraints. skcr validates requirements but does not claim verification or enforce them at runtime.

When to use

• payment flow testing decisions, controls, or operating practices need independent review.
• A change affects payment flow testing artifacts such as payment scenario matrix, sandbox fixture, provider test clock or simulator, failure-injection test, webhook fixture, ledger assertion.
• The user needs evidence-oriented findings for risks such as happy-path-only coverage, untested ambiguous timeout, missing authentication challenge, double-submit regression, sandbox-production mismatch, incorrect ledger side effect.
• Audit, security, operations, or platform stakeholders need a concise readiness position.
• Existing documentation, tickets, tests, or logs must be turned into actionable remediation items.

Operating model

1. Identify the relevant payment flow testing artifacts, owners, systems, environments, and review boundary.
2. Compare the available artifacts against expected signals such as authorization and capture trace, decline-code assertion, delayed-webhook test, idempotent retry result, refund test, state-machine coverage report.
3. Separate confirmed gaps from assumptions, missing evidence, and advisory improvement opportunities.
4. Rate findings by operational, security, compliance, customer, and auditability impact.
5. Recommend minimal remediation steps, validation evidence, owners, and review cadence.
6. Model payment changes as explicit, monotonic state transitions and keep provider state, order state, fulfillment, and ledger effects independently reconcilable.
7. Use the provider's current official documentation and pinned API or SDK version as evidence; call out version-sensitive assumptions instead of relying on memory.