| name | caspar-create_test_guide |
| description | Generate a right-sized manual test guide for completed work — feature-based checklists scaled to change size, focused on risk. Use after execute/validate when you need a human-runnable QA pass before clean/test. Do NOT use to write automated tests (that's the test phase) or to validate wiring (that's validate). |
| user-invocable | true |
create_test_guide
Produce a manual testing guide, scaled to the change, that a human can run to validate the work. Input is the current task's changes; output is one checklist artifact.
Inputs
$ARGUMENTS — optional focus areas to emphasize.- Task context: features added/modified/removed, stack/environment, user personas, integration points/dependencies. Read from canonical artifacts (scope.md, plan.md, tasks.json slices) and the diff. Use
execute.md only to locate tasks.json; do not inline the full task graph.
Working Set
- Read-only: task artifacts under
docs/tasks/{branch}/, the implemented diff.
- Write: the single test-guide artifact only.
Outputs + DONE
Write to {OUT_DIR}/testing/{branch}_test_guide.md where branch=$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD) and OUT_DIR = user-specified target_dir if given, else docs/tasks/{branch} (run mkdir -p "$OUT_DIR/testing").
DONE when:
- Complexity classified Simple | Medium | Complex with a one-line rationale (Simple = smoke/happy-path + quick regression; Medium = edge cases, error handling, basic integration; Complex = advanced scenarios, performance, cross-feature, security).
- Required sections present (always): Testing Overview (scope, environment, prerequisites) · Environment Setup (steps + verification) · Core Test Cases (primary functionality) · Results Documentation (how to record/report).
- Optional sections included only when relevant: Known Issues & Limitations · Rollback Procedures (high-risk/prod) · Performance · Accessibility (UI/UX) · Cross-Browser/Device (frontend) · Data Validation · Security (auth/permissions/data-access).
- Organized by user workflow/feature, not procedural phases; headers name the user goal.
- Each checkbox is an action + verification pair (e.g. "Send POST to /api/users → verify 201 with user ID returned"), using
[ ] for tracking; related steps grouped under one scenario; concrete test data (paths, names, shortcuts/UI elements in parens) included.
- Depth scaled to change size (CSS tweak ≠ payment system); instructions runnable by someone unfamiliar with the code; no over-engineering for trivial changes.
- A coverage summary returned: # workflows, # steps, estimated time, and the chosen complexity tier + rationale.
Feature-section shape:
### 1. Feature Name (User Action/Context)
- [ ] Action to perform → what to verify/expect
- [ ] Edge case or error handling → expected behavior
Method / guardrails
- Scale to risk: prioritize what is most likely to break or impact users; only include sections that add value.
- Each scenario validates one capability end-to-end.
Handoff
- Return the coverage summary in-thread (no extra docs). Close with a one-line Next Steps pointing to
caspar-clean or caspar-test.
Escalate-If
- Task context is too thin to identify the changed features or personas — ask before guessing.
