One-time bootstrap that stands up a weekly quality-report dashboard in a repo that has none. Inspects the codebase to discover its real stack (languages, test/coverage tooling, security scanner, e2e matrix, a11y lint, default branch, local-vs-container exec), decides which of the seven metrics the repo can actually support, then BUILDS the per-repo analyzers and installs the shipped, stack-invariant report-generator template — it ships the generator (identical everywhere) but builds the analyzers (which vary by stack). Wires unit-coverage (blended line+branch), e2e coverage, maintainability (cognitive complexity), accessibility, and security into a rotating dashboard with whole-repo and new-code (Clean-as-You-Code) lenses, grades, RAG, and trends. Verifies by generating the report once. Run ONCE per repo. Use when the user says 'set up the quality report', 'add a quality dashboard', 'bootstrap quality metrics', 'reverse-engineer the quality report into this repo', or before the first weekly report run on a re
Multi-agent workflow for retrofitting a coverage-matrix section with Playwright e2e tests. Drives the full lifecycle: scope confirm, live-UI recon, implementation in a sub-agent, fresh-context review, fix application, a single confirmation run per environment, and wrap-up (matrix rows updated, branch pushed / PR opened, and — if a tracker is configured — the issue commented). Use when the user says 'retrofit e2e tests for {ticket}', 'add e2e coverage for {section}', 'cover {section} with Playwright tests', or any variant of 'apply the multi-agent e2e workflow'. Designed to survive a context reset — the conventions encoded here and in patterns.md are the source of truth across conversations.
One-time bootstrap that stands up a Playwright e2e suite in a repo that has none, so the e2e-retrofit workflow can then run against it. Copies the bundled reference harness into the project, installs Playwright + browser binaries, registers the Playwright MCP, wires the harness helpers to the real app (auth, API base, login selectors) via MCP recon, writes a single smoke test to prove the wiring (feature specs are e2e-retrofit's job — setup does NOT write them), scaffolds a coverage matrix (recon-seeded or blank — the user's gated choice), and smoke-verifies. Run ONCE per repo. Use when the user says 'set up e2e', 'set up playwright', 'bootstrap e2e tests', 'add playwright to this repo', 'there's no e2e here yet', or before a first 'retrofit e2e tests' run on a greenfield repo. After this completes, day-to-day work uses the e2e-retrofit skill.
Analyse the acceptance criteria in a spec, issue-tracker story (Jira, GitHub, Linear, etc.), or markdown file to surface the risks worth testing, score each by likelihood × impact, filter by the team's risk appetite, and turn the survivors into exploratory test charters. Produces a markdown risk-and-charters report. Use whenever the user wants exploratory testing ideas, a risk analysis or risk assessment of a story/AC, risk-based testing, test charters, "what should I test here", "what are the risks in this AC", edge cases and failure modes for a behaviour, or points at a spec/ticket and asks what could go wrong. Trigger even if they don't say "exploratory" but are clearly asking which risks a feature carries or how to test it. Runs each heavy step in a fresh subagent to keep the orchestrator's context high.
Repeatable weekly run that refreshes an already-bootstrapped quality dashboard. Runs the per-repo pipeline (analyzers → collect → generate.py) through the execution wrapper setup chose, rotates This-week → Last-week and appends History, recomputes grades/RAG/trends, validates the dashboard is internally consistent, then narrates what changed week-over-week — leading with regressions and anything newly red. Degraded tools become labelled limitations, never fabricated or stale-carried numbers. Use when the user says 'update the quality report', 'regenerate the quality dashboard', 'run the weekly quality report', 'refresh quality metrics', or asks how this week's quality compares to last. Requires quality-report-setup to have run first; if no dashboard/generator exists, redirect there. Designed to survive a context reset — the setup skill and template/README.md are the source of truth for the contract.
Review a user story for testability as a senior quality engineer, score it (Fail/Bronze/Silver/Gold), run an acceptance-criteria-level gap analysis, and refine it to a Gold standard. Use this whenever the user wants a user story, ticket, or backlog item reviewed, scored, QA-assessed, or improved for testability; whenever they mention three amigos, acceptance criteria quality, testability, "is this story ready", "review this ticket", definition of ready, or refinement; and whenever they point at a Jira/issue-tracker story or paste story text and ask for a quality engineer's view. Trigger even if they do not say the word "testability" but are clearly asking whether a story is well written or ready for development.