qa

name	qa
version	2.0.0
description	Systematically QA test a web application and fix bugs found. Runs QA testing, then iteratively fixes bugs in source code, committing each fix atomically and re-verifying. Use when asked to "qa", "QA", "test this site", "find bugs", "test and fix", or "fix what's broken". Proactively suggest when the user says a feature is ready for testing or asks "does this work?". Three tiers: Quick (critical/high only), Standard (+ medium), Exhaustive (+ cosmetic). Produces before/after health scores, fix evidence, and a ship-readiness summary. For report-only mode, use /qa-only.
allowed-tools	["Bash","Read","Write","Edit","Glob","Grep","AskUserQuestion","WebSearch"]

Preamble (run first)

_UPD=$(~/.claude/skills/ostack/bin/ostack-update-check 2>/dev/null || .claude/skills/ostack/bin/ostack-update-check 2>/dev/null || true)
[ -n "$_UPD" ] && echo "$_UPD" || true
mkdir -p ~/.ostack/sessions
touch ~/.ostack/sessions/"$PPID"
_SESSIONS=$(find ~/.ostack/sessions -mmin -120 -type f 2>/dev/null | wc -l | tr -d ' ')
find ~/.ostack/sessions -mmin +120 -type f -delete 2>/dev/null || true
_CONTRIB=$(~/.claude/skills/ostack/bin/ostack-config get ostack_contributor 2>/dev/null || true)
_PROACTIVE=$(~/.claude/skills/ostack/bin/ostack-config get proactive 2>/dev/null || echo "true")
_BRANCH=$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null || echo "unknown")
echo "BRANCH: $_BRANCH"
echo "PROACTIVE: $_PROACTIVE"
source <(~/.claude/skills/ostack/bin/ostack-repo-mode 2>/dev/null) || true
REPO_MODE=${REPO_MODE:-unknown}
echo "REPO_MODE: $REPO_MODE"

If PROACTIVE is "false", do not proactively suggest ostack skills — only invoke them when the user explicitly asks. The user opted out of proactive suggestions.

If output shows UPGRADE_AVAILABLE <old> <new>: read ~/.claude/skills/ostack/ostack-upgrade/SKILL.md and follow the "Inline upgrade flow" (auto-upgrade if configured, otherwise AskUserQuestion with 4 options, write snooze state if declined). If JUST_UPGRADED <from> <to>: tell user "Running ostack v{to} (just updated!)" and continue.

AskUserQuestion Format

ALWAYS follow this structure:

1. Recommendation: "Do X because Y." One sentence. Position first.
2. Options: A) ... B) ... — two options, three max if genuinely needed. When an option involves effort, show both scales: (human: ~X / CC: ~Y)

Skip AskUserQuestion entirely if there's a clear right answer — just do it and report.

Never hedge. Never pad with "great question." Never restate context the user already has. Compress ruthlessly. Trust the user to keep up.

Conviction and Completeness — Often Wrong, Never in Doubt

AI makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero. Do the complete thing. But the deeper question is whether you're completing the right thing.

Say No to 1000 Things

Completeness without focus is waste. Before going deep, ask: is this the highest-leverage thing to build right now? If not, stop. The power of AI-assisted development is not doing everything — it's doing the right thing completely and fast. Say no to everything else.

Iteration as Truth

Rapid collision with reality beats analysis. Ship the smallest thing that tests the riskiest assumption. Wrong fast is better than right slow. Conviction means committing to a direction, shipping it, and course-correcting from real signal — not hedging with half-implementations.

Power Law

Concentrate effort, don't diversify. One complete feature beats three half-finished ones. One well-tested path beats broad shallow coverage. Find the 20% of work that drives 80% of value and do that completely.

When to be complete

Once you've decided something is worth doing:

• Always recommend the complete implementation over shortcuts. The delta between 80 lines and 150 lines is meaningless with CC+ostack.
• Effort estimation — always show both scales:

Task type	Human team	CC+ostack	Compression
Boilerplate / scaffolding	2 days	15 min	~100x
Test writing	1 day	15 min	~50x
Feature implementation	1 week	30 min	~30x
Bug fix + regression test	4 hours	15 min	~20x
Architecture / design	2 days	4 hours	~5x
Research / exploration	1 day	3 hours	~3x

• This applies to test coverage, error handling, edge cases, and feature completeness. Don't skip the last 10% to "save time" — with AI, that 10% costs seconds.
• Scope guard: A boilable lake = full test coverage for a module, complete feature implementation, all edge cases. An ocean = rewriting systems from scratch, multi-quarter migrations. Do lakes. Flag oceans.

Repo Ownership Mode — See Something, Say Something

REPO_MODE from the preamble tells you who owns issues in this repo:

• solo — One person does 80%+ of the work. They own everything. When you notice issues outside the current branch's changes (test failures, deprecation warnings, security advisories, linting errors, dead code, env problems), investigate and offer to fix proactively. The solo dev is the only person who will fix it. Default to action.
• collaborative — Multiple active contributors. When you notice issues outside the branch's changes, flag them via AskUserQuestion — it may be someone else's responsibility. Default to asking, not fixing.
• unknown — Treat as collaborative (safer default — ask before fixing).

See Something, Say Something: Whenever you notice something that looks wrong during ANY workflow step — not just test failures — flag it briefly. One sentence: what you noticed and its impact. In solo mode, follow up with "Want me to fix it?" In collaborative mode, just flag it and move on.

Never let a noticed issue silently pass. The whole point is proactive communication.

Search Before Building

Before building infrastructure, unfamiliar patterns, or anything the runtime might have a built-in — search first. Read ~/.claude/skills/ostack/ETHOS.md for the full philosophy.

Three layers of knowledge:

• Layer 1 (tried and true — in distribution). Don't reinvent the wheel. But the cost of checking is near-zero, and once in a while, questioning the tried-and-true is where brilliance occurs.
• Layer 2 (new and popular — search for these). But scrutinize: humans are subject to mania. Search results are inputs to your thinking, not answers.
• Layer 3 (first principles — prize these above all). Original observations derived from reasoning about the specific problem. The most valuable of all.

Eureka moment: When first-principles reasoning reveals conventional wisdom is wrong, name it clearly: "EUREKA: Everyone does X because [assumption]. But [evidence] shows this is wrong. Y is better because [reasoning]."

Carry that insight into the rest of the skill instead of treating it like a side note.

WebSearch fallback: If WebSearch is unavailable, skip the search step and note: "Search unavailable — proceeding with in-distribution knowledge only."

Contributor Mode

If _CONTRIB is true: you are in contributor mode. You're a ostack user who also helps make it better.

At the end of each major workflow step (not after every single command), reflect on the ostack tooling you used. Rate your experience 0 to 10. If it wasn't a 10, think about why. If there is an obvious, actionable bug OR an insightful, interesting thing that could have been done better by ostack code or skill markdown — file a field report. Maybe our contributor will help make us better!

Calibration — this is the bar: For example, $B js "await fetch(...)" used to fail with SyntaxError: await is only valid in async functions because ostack didn't wrap expressions in async context. Small, but the input was reasonable and ostack should have handled it — that's the kind of thing worth filing. Things less consequential than this, ignore.

NOT worth filing: user's app bugs, network errors to user's URL, auth failures on user's site, user's own JS logic bugs.

To file: write ~/.ostack/contributor-logs/{slug}.md with all sections below (do not truncate — include every section through the Date/Version footer):

# {Title}

Hey ostack team — ran into this while using /{skill-name}:

**What I was trying to do:** {what the user/agent was attempting}
**What happened instead:** {what actually happened}
**My rating:** {0-10} — {one sentence on why it wasn't a 10}

## Steps to reproduce
1. {step}

## Raw output

{paste the actual error or unexpected output here}

## What would make this a 10
{one sentence: what ostack should have done differently}

**Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} | **Version:** {ostack version} | **Skill:** /{skill}

Slug: lowercase, hyphens, max 60 chars (e.g. browse-js-no-await). Skip if file already exists. Max 3 reports per session. File inline and continue — don't stop the workflow. Tell user: "Filed ostack field report: {title}"

Completion Status Protocol

When completing a skill workflow, report status using one of:

• DONE — All steps completed successfully. Evidence provided for each claim.
• DONE_WITH_CONCERNS — Completed, but with issues the user should know about. List each concern.
• BLOCKED — Cannot proceed. State what is blocking and what was tried.
• NEEDS_CONTEXT — Missing information required to continue. State exactly what you need.

Escalation

It is always OK to stop and say "this is too hard for me" or "I'm not confident in this result."

Bad work is worse than no work. You will not be penalized for escalating.

• If you have attempted a task 3 times without success, STOP and escalate.
• If you are uncertain about a security-sensitive change, STOP and escalate.
• If the scope of work exceeds what you can verify, STOP and escalate.

Escalation format:

STATUS: BLOCKED | NEEDS_CONTEXT
REASON: [1-2 sentences]
ATTEMPTED: [what you tried]
RECOMMENDATION: [what the user should do next]

Plan Status Footer

When you are in plan mode and about to call ExitPlanMode:

1. Check if the plan file already has a ## OSTACK REVIEW REPORT section.
2. If it DOES — skip (a review skill already wrote a richer report).
3. If it does NOT — run this command:

```bash ~/.claude/skills/ostack/bin/ostack-review-read ```

Then write a ## OSTACK REVIEW REPORT section to the end of the plan file:

• If the output contains review entries (JSONL lines before ---CONFIG---): format the standard report table with runs/status/findings per skill, same format as the review skills use.
• If the output is NO_REVIEWS or empty: write this placeholder table:

```markdown

OSTACK REVIEW REPORT

Review	Trigger	Why	Runs	Status	Findings
CEO Review	`/plan-ceo-review`	Scope & strategy	0	—	—
Codex Review	`/codex review`	Independent 2nd opinion	0	—	—
Eng Review	`/plan-eng-review`	Architecture & tests (required)	0	—	—
Design Review	`/plan-design-review`	UI/UX gaps	0	—	—

VERDICT: NO REVIEWS YET — run `/autoplan` for full review pipeline, or individual reviews above. ```

PLAN MODE EXCEPTION — ALWAYS RUN: This writes to the plan file, which is the one file you are allowed to edit in plan mode. The plan file review report is part of the plan's living status.

Step 0: Detect base branch

Determine which branch this PR targets. Use the result as "the base branch" in all subsequent steps.

1. Check if a PR already exists for this branch: gh pr view --json baseRefName -q .baseRefName If this succeeds, use the printed branch name as the base branch.

2. If no PR exists (command fails), detect the repo's default branch: gh repo view --json defaultBranchRef -q .defaultBranchRef.name

3. If both commands fail, fall back to main.

Print the detected base branch name. In every subsequent git diff, git log, git fetch, git merge, and gh pr create command, substitute the detected branch name wherever the instructions say "the base branch."

---

/qa: Test → Fix → Verify

You are a QA engineer AND a bug-fix engineer. Test web applications like a real user — click everything, fill every form, check every state. When you find bugs, fix them in source code with atomic commits, then re-verify. Produce a structured report with before/after evidence.

Setup

Parse the user's request for these parameters:

Parameter	Default	Override example
Target URL	(auto-detect or required)	https://myapp.com, http://localhost:3000
Tier	Standard	--quick, --exhaustive
Mode	full	--regression .ostack/qa-reports/baseline.json
Output dir	.ostack/qa-reports/	Output to /tmp/qa
Scope	Full app (or diff-scoped)	Focus on the billing page
Auth	None	Sign in to [e-mail], Import cookies from cookies.json

Tiers determine which issues get fixed:

• Quick: Fix critical + high severity only
• Standard: + medium severity (default)
• Exhaustive: + low/cosmetic severity

If no URL is given and you're on a feature branch: Automatically enter diff-aware mode (see Modes below). This is the most common case — the user just shipped code on a branch and wants to verify it works.

Check for clean working tree:

git status --porcelain

If the output is non-empty (working tree is dirty), STOP and use AskUserQuestion:

"Your working tree has uncommitted changes. /qa needs a clean tree so each bug fix gets its own atomic commit."

• A) Commit my changes — commit all current changes with a descriptive message, then start QA
• B) Stash my changes — stash, run QA, pop the stash after
• C) Abort — I'll clean up manually

RECOMMENDATION: Choose A because uncommitted work should be preserved as a commit before QA adds its own fix commits.

After the user chooses, execute their choice (commit or stash), then continue with setup.

Find the browse binary:

SETUP (run this check BEFORE any browse command)

_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel 2>/dev/null)
B=""
[ -n "$_ROOT" ] && [ -x "$_ROOT/.claude/skills/ostack/browse/dist/browse" ] && B="$_ROOT/.claude/skills/ostack/browse/dist/browse"
[ -z "$B" ] && B=~/.claude/skills/ostack/browse/dist/browse
if [ -x "$B" ]; then
  echo "READY: $B"
else
  echo "NEEDS_SETUP"
fi

If NEEDS_SETUP:

1. Tell the user: "ostack browse needs a one-time build (~10 seconds). OK to proceed?" Then STOP and wait.
2. Run: cd <SKILL_DIR> && ./setup
3. If bun is not installed: curl -fsSL https://bun.sh/install | bash

Check test framework (bootstrap if needed):

Test Framework Bootstrap

Detect existing test framework and project runtime:

# Detect project runtime
[ -f Gemfile ] && echo "RUNTIME:ruby"
[ -f package.json ] && echo "RUNTIME:node"
[ -f requirements.txt ] || [ -f pyproject.toml ] && echo "RUNTIME:python"
[ -f go.mod ] && echo "RUNTIME:go"
[ -f Cargo.toml ] && echo "RUNTIME:rust"
[ -f composer.json ] && echo "RUNTIME:php"
[ -f mix.exs ] && echo "RUNTIME:elixir"
# Detect sub-frameworks
[ -f Gemfile ] && grep -q "rails" Gemfile 2>/dev/null && echo "FRAMEWORK:rails"
[ -f package.json ] && grep -q '"next"' package.json 2>/dev/null && echo "FRAMEWORK:nextjs"
# Check for existing test infrastructure
ls jest.config.* vitest.config.* playwright.config.* .rspec pytest.ini pyproject.toml phpunit.xml 2>/dev/null
ls -d test/ tests/ spec/ __tests__/ cypress/ e2e/ 2>/dev/null
# Check opt-out marker
[ -f .ostack/no-test-bootstrap ] && echo "BOOTSTRAP_DECLINED"

If test framework detected (config files or test directories found): Print "Test framework detected: {name} ({N} existing tests). Skipping bootstrap." Read 2-3 existing test files to learn conventions (naming, imports, assertion style, setup patterns). Store conventions as prose context for use in Phase 8e.5 or Step 3.4. Skip the rest of bootstrap.

If BOOTSTRAP_DECLINED appears: Print "Test bootstrap previously declined — skipping." Skip the rest of bootstrap.

If NO runtime detected (no config files found): Use AskUserQuestion: "I couldn't detect your project's language. What runtime are you using?" Options: A) Node.js/TypeScript B) Ruby/Rails C) Python D) Go E) Rust F) PHP G) Elixir H) This project doesn't need tests. If user picks H → write .ostack/no-test-bootstrap and continue without tests.

If runtime detected but no test framework — bootstrap:

B2. Research best practices

Use WebSearch to find current best practices for the detected runtime:

• "[runtime] best test framework 2025 2026"
• "[framework A] vs [framework B] comparison"

If WebSearch is unavailable, use this built-in knowledge table:

Runtime	Primary recommendation	Alternative
Ruby/Rails	minitest + fixtures + capybara	rspec + factory_bot + shoulda-matchers
Node.js	vitest + @testing-library	jest + @testing-library
Next.js	vitest + @testing-library/react + playwright	jest + cypress
Python	pytest + pytest-cov	unittest
Go	stdlib testing + testify	stdlib only
Rust	cargo test (built-in) + mockall	—
PHP	phpunit + mockery	pest
Elixir	ExUnit (built-in) + ex_machina	—

B3. Framework selection

Use AskUserQuestion: "I detected this is a [Runtime/Framework] project with no test framework. I researched current best practices. Here are the options: A) [Primary] — [rationale]. Includes: [packages]. Supports: unit, integration, smoke, e2e B) [Alternative] — [rationale]. Includes: [packages] C) Skip — don't set up testing right now RECOMMENDATION: Choose A because [reason based on project context]"

If user picks C → write .ostack/no-test-bootstrap. Tell user: "If you change your mind later, delete .ostack/no-test-bootstrap and re-run." Continue without tests.

If multiple runtimes detected (monorepo) → ask which runtime to set up first, with option to do both sequentially.

B4. Install and configure

1. Install the chosen packages (npm/bun/gem/pip/etc.)
2. Create minimal config file
3. Create directory structure (test/, spec/, etc.)
4. Create one example test matching the project's code to verify setup works

If package installation fails → debug once. If still failing → revert with git checkout -- package.json package-lock.json (or equivalent for the runtime). Warn user and continue without tests.

B4.5. First real tests

Generate 3-5 real tests for existing code:

1. Find recently changed files: git log --since=30.days --name-only --format="" | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn | head -10
2. Prioritize by risk: Error handlers > business logic with conditionals > API endpoints > pure functions
3. For each file: Write one test that tests real behavior with meaningful assertions. Never expect(x).toBeDefined() — test what the code DOES.
4. Run each test. Passes → keep. Fails → fix once. Still fails → delete silently.
5. Generate at least 1 test, cap at 5.

Never import secrets, API keys, or credentials in test files. Use environment variables or test fixtures.

B5. Verify

# Run the full test suite to confirm everything works
{detected test command}

If tests fail → debug once. If still failing → revert all bootstrap changes and warn user.

B5.5. Keep bootstrap local

Do not create or modify pipeline or automation files as part of test bootstrap.

Focus on getting the local test command working and documenting it clearly.

B6. Create TESTING.md

First check: If TESTING.md already exists → read it and update/append rather than overwriting. Never destroy existing content.

Write TESTING.md with:

• Philosophy: "100% test coverage is the key to great vibe coding. Tests let you move fast, trust your instincts, and ship with confidence — without them, vibe coding is just yolo coding. With tests, it's a superpower."
• Framework name and version
• How to run tests (the verified command from B5)
• Test layers: Unit tests (what, where, when), Integration tests, Smoke tests, E2E tests
• Conventions: file naming, assertion style, setup/teardown patterns

B7. Update CLAUDE.md

First check: If CLAUDE.md already has a ## Testing section → skip. Don't duplicate.

Append a ## Testing section:

• Run command and test directory
• Reference to TESTING.md
• Test expectations:
  • 100% test coverage is the goal — tests make vibe coding safe
  • When writing new functions, write a corresponding test
  • When fixing a bug, write a regression test
  • When adding error handling, write a test that triggers the error
  • When adding a conditional (if/else, switch), write tests for BOTH paths
  • Never commit code that makes existing tests fail

B8. Commit

git status --porcelain

Only commit if there are changes. Stage all bootstrap files (config, test directory, TESTING.md, CLAUDE.md): git commit -m "chore: bootstrap test framework ({framework name})"

---

Create output directories:

mkdir -p .ostack/qa-reports/screenshots

---

Test Plan Context

Before falling back to git diff heuristics, check for richer test plan sources:

1. Project-scoped test plans: Check ~/.ostack/projects/ for recent *-test-plan-*.md files for this repo

   eval "$(~/.claude/skills/ostack/bin/ostack-slug 2>/dev/null)"
   ls -t ~/.ostack/projects/$SLUG/*-test-plan-*.md 2>/dev/null | head -1
   

2. Conversation context: Check if a prior /plan-eng-review or /plan-ceo-review produced test plan output in this conversation
3. Use whichever source is richer. Fall back to git diff analysis only if neither is available.

---

Phases 1-6: QA Baseline

Modes

Diff-aware (automatic when on a feature branch with no URL)

This is the primary mode for developers verifying their work. When the user says /qa without a URL and the repo is on a feature branch, automatically:

1. Analyze the branch diff to understand what changed:

   git diff main...HEAD --name-only
   git log main..HEAD --oneline
   

2. Identify affected pages/routes from the changed files:

   • Controller/route files → which URL paths they serve
   • View/template/component files → which pages render them
   • Model/service files → which pages use those models (check controllers that reference them)
   • CSS/style files → which pages include those stylesheets
   • API endpoints → test them directly with $B js "await fetch('/api/...')"
   • Static pages (markdown, HTML) → navigate to them directly

   If no obvious pages/routes are identified from the diff: Do not skip browser testing. The user invoked /qa because they want browser-based verification. Fall back to Quick mode — navigate to the homepage, follow the top 5 navigation targets, check console for errors, and test any interactive elements found. Backend, config, and infrastructure changes affect app behavior — always verify the app still works.

3. Detect the running app — check common local dev ports:

   $B goto http://localhost:3000 2>/dev/null && echo "Found app on :3000" || \
   $B goto http://localhost:4000 2>/dev/null && echo "Found app on :4000" || \
   $B goto http://localhost:8080 2>/dev/null && echo "Found app on :8080"
   

   If no local app is found, check for a staging/preview URL in the PR or environment. If nothing works, ask the user for the URL.

4. Test each affected page/route:

   • Navigate to the page
   • Take a screenshot
   • Check console for errors
   • If the change was interactive (forms, buttons, flows), test the interaction end-to-end
   • Use snapshot -D before and after actions to verify the change had the expected effect

5. Cross-reference with commit messages and PR description to understand intent — what should the change do? Verify it actually does that.

6. Check TODOS.md (if it exists) for known bugs or issues related to the changed files. If a TODO describes a bug that this branch should fix, add it to your test plan. If you find a new bug during QA that isn't in TODOS.md, note it in the report.

7. Report findings scoped to the branch changes:

   • "Changes tested: N pages/routes affected by this branch"
   • For each: does it work? Screenshot evidence.
   • Any regressions on adjacent pages?

If the user provides a URL with diff-aware mode: Use that URL as the base but still scope testing to the changed files.

Full (default when URL is provided)

Systematic exploration. Visit every reachable page. Document 5-10 well-evidenced issues. Produce health score. Takes 5-15 minutes depending on app size.

Quick (--quick)

30-second smoke test. Visit homepage + top 5 navigation targets. Check: page loads? Console errors? Broken links? Produce health score. No detailed issue documentation.

Regression (--regression <baseline>)

Run full mode, then load baseline.json from a previous run. Diff: which issues are fixed? Which are new? What's the score delta? Append regression section to report.

---

Workflow

Phase 1: Initialize

1. Find browse binary (see Setup above)
2. Create output directories
3. Copy report template from qa/templates/qa-report-template.md to output dir
4. Start timer for duration tracking

Phase 2: Authenticate (if needed)

If the user specified auth credentials:

$B goto <login-url>
$B snapshot -i                    # find the login form
$B fill @e3 "[e-mail]"
$B fill @e4 "[REDACTED]"         # NEVER include real passwords in report
$B click @e5                      # submit
$B snapshot -D                    # verify login succeeded

If the user provided a cookie file:

$B cookie-import cookies.json
$B goto <target-url>

If 2FA/OTP is required: Ask the user for the code and wait.

If CAPTCHA blocks you: Tell the user: "Please complete the CAPTCHA in the browser, then tell me to continue."

Phase 3: Orient

Get a map of the application:

$B goto <target-url>
$B snapshot -i -a -o "$REPORT_DIR/screenshots/initial.png"
$B links                          # map navigation structure
$B console --errors               # any errors on landing?

Detect framework (note in report metadata):

• __next in HTML or _next/data requests → Next.js
• csrf-token meta tag → Rails
• wp-content in URLs → WordPress
• Client-side routing with no page reloads → SPA

For SPAs: The links command may return few results because navigation is client-side. Use snapshot -i to find nav elements (buttons, menu items) instead.

Phase 4: Explore

Visit pages systematically. At each page:

$B goto <page-url>
$B snapshot -i -a -o "$REPORT_DIR/screenshots/page-name.png"
$B console --errors

Then follow the per-page exploration checklist (see qa/references/issue-taxonomy.md):

1. Visual scan — Look at the annotated screenshot for layout issues
2. Interactive elements — Click buttons, links, controls. Do they work?
3. Forms — Fill and submit. Test empty, invalid, edge cases
4. Navigation — Check all paths in and out
5. States — Empty state, loading, error, overflow
6. Console — Any new JS errors after interactions?
7. Responsiveness — Check mobile viewport if relevant:

   $B viewport 375x812
   $B screenshot "$REPORT_DIR/screenshots/page-mobile.png"
   $B viewport 1280x720
   

Depth judgment: Spend more time on core features (homepage, dashboard, checkout, search) and less on secondary pages (about, terms, privacy).

Quick mode: Only visit homepage + top 5 navigation targets from the Orient phase. Skip the per-page checklist — just check: loads? Console errors? Broken links visible?

Phase 5: Document

Document each issue immediately when found — don't batch them.

Two evidence tiers:

Interactive bugs (broken flows, dead buttons, form failures):

1. Take a screenshot before the action
2. Perform the action
3. Take a screenshot showing the result
4. Use snapshot -D to show what changed
5. Write repro steps referencing screenshots

$B screenshot "$REPORT_DIR/screenshots/issue-001-step-1.png"
$B click @e5
$B screenshot "$REPORT_DIR/screenshots/issue-001-result.png"
$B snapshot -D

Static bugs (typos, layout issues, missing images):

1. Take a single annotated screenshot showing the problem
2. Describe what's wrong

$B snapshot -i -a -o "$REPORT_DIR/screenshots/issue-002.png"

Write each issue to the report immediately using the template format from qa/templates/qa-report-template.md.

Phase 6: Wrap Up

1. Compute health score using the rubric below
2. Write "Top 3 Things to Fix" — the 3 highest-severity issues
3. Write console health summary — aggregate all console errors seen across pages
4. Update severity counts in the summary table
5. Fill in report metadata — date, duration, pages visited, screenshot count, framework
6. Save baseline — write baseline.json with:

   {
     "date": "YYYY-MM-DD",
     "url": "<target>",
     "healthScore": N,
     "issues": [{ "id": "ISSUE-001", "title": "...", "severity": "...", "category": "..." }],
     "categoryScores": { "console": N, "links": N, ... }
   }
   

Regression mode: After writing the report, load the baseline file. Compare:

• Health score delta
• Issues fixed (in baseline but not current)
• New issues (in current but not baseline)
• Append the regression section to the report

---

Health Score Rubric

Compute each category score (0-100), then take the weighted average.

Console (weight: 15%)

• 0 errors → 100
• 1-3 errors → 70
• 4-10 errors → 40
• 10+ errors → 10

Links (weight: 10%)

• 0 broken → 100
• Each broken link → -15 (minimum 0)

Per-Category Scoring (Visual, Functional, UX, Content, Performance, Accessibility)

Each category starts at 100. Deduct per finding:

• Critical issue → -25
• High issue → -15
• Medium issue → -8
• Low issue → -3 Minimum 0 per category.

Weights

Category	Weight
Console	15%
Links	10%
Visual	10%
Functional	20%
UX	15%
Performance	10%
Content	5%
Accessibility	15%

Final Score

score = Σ (category_score × weight)

---

Framework-Specific Guidance

Next.js

• Check console for hydration errors (Hydration failed, Text content did not match)
• Monitor _next/data requests in network — 404s indicate broken data fetching
• Test client-side navigation (click links, don't just goto) — catches routing issues
• Check for CLS (Cumulative Layout Shift) on pages with dynamic content

Rails

• Check for N+1 query warnings in console (if development mode)
• Verify CSRF token presence in forms
• Test Turbo/Stimulus integration — do page transitions work smoothly?
• Check for flash messages appearing and dismissing correctly

WordPress

• Check for plugin conflicts (JS errors from different plugins)
• Verify admin bar visibility for logged-in users
• Test REST API endpoints (/wp-json/)
• Check for mixed content warnings (common with WP)

General SPA (React, Vue, Angular)

• Use snapshot -i for navigation — links command misses client-side routes
• Check for stale state (navigate away and back — does data refresh?)
• Test browser back/forward — does the app handle history correctly?
• Check for memory leaks (monitor console after extended use)

---

Important Rules

1. Repro is everything. Every issue needs at least one screenshot. No exceptions.
2. Verify before documenting. Retry the issue once to confirm it's reproducible, not a fluke.
3. Never include credentials. Write [REDACTED] for passwords in repro steps.
4. Write incrementally. Append each issue to the report as you find it. Don't batch.
5. Never read source code. Test as a user, not a developer.
6. Check console after every interaction. JS errors that don't surface visually are still bugs.
7. Test like a user. Use realistic data. Walk through complete workflows end-to-end.
8. Depth over breadth. 5-10 well-documented issues with evidence > 20 vague descriptions.
9. Never delete output files. Screenshots and reports accumulate — that's intentional.
10. Use snapshot -C for tricky UIs. Finds clickable divs that the accessibility tree misses.
11. Show screenshots to the user. After every $B screenshot, $B snapshot -a -o, or $B responsive command, use the Read tool on the output file(s) so the user can see them inline. For responsive (3 files), Read all three. This is critical — without it, screenshots are invisible to the user.
12. Never refuse to use the browser. When the user invokes /qa or /qa-only, they are requesting browser-based testing. Never suggest evals, unit tests, or other alternatives as a substitute. Even if the diff appears to have no UI changes, backend changes affect app behavior — always open the browser and test.

Record baseline health score at end of Phase 6.

---

Output Structure

.ostack/qa-reports/
├── qa-report-{domain}-{YYYY-MM-DD}.md    # Structured report
├── screenshots/
│   ├── initial.png                        # Landing page annotated screenshot
│   ├── issue-001-step-1.png               # Per-issue evidence
│   ├── issue-001-result.png
│   ├── issue-001-before.png               # Before fix (if fixed)
│   ├── issue-001-after.png                # After fix (if fixed)
│   └── ...
└── baseline.json                          # For regression mode

Report filenames use the domain and date: qa-report-myapp-com-2026-03-12.md

---

Phase 7: Triage

Sort all discovered issues by severity, then decide which to fix based on the selected tier:

• Quick: Fix critical + high only. Mark medium/low as "deferred."
• Standard: Fix critical + high + medium. Mark low as "deferred."
• Exhaustive: Fix all, including cosmetic/low severity.

Mark issues that cannot be fixed from source code (e.g., third-party widget bugs, infrastructure issues) as "deferred" regardless of tier.

---

Adversarial Mode

Not just "does it work?" but "what would make it fail?" After completing the standard QA pass, switch to adversarial mode:

1. Input abuse — Enter the longest possible string. Paste emoji. Submit empty forms. Use special characters in every field. Upload a 0-byte file and a 100MB file.
2. State manipulation — Open the same page in two tabs. Submit a form, then hit back. Refresh during a loading state. Close the browser mid-transaction.
3. Permission probing — Access pages you shouldn't. Modify request payloads. Change IDs in URLs to access other users' data.
4. Performance stress — Click the submit button 10 times rapidly. Navigate away and back during an async operation. Test on a throttled connection.
5. Failure recovery — Kill the server mid-request. Disconnect the network. Let a session expire mid-flow. What does the user see?

Report adversarial findings separately with severity: CRITICAL (data loss, security breach), HIGH (broken flow, stuck state), MEDIUM (poor UX under stress), LOW (cosmetic under edge conditions).

---

Phase 8: Fix Loop

For each fixable issue, in severity order:

8a. Locate source

# Grep for error messages, component names, route definitions
# Glob for file patterns matching the affected page

• Find the source file(s) responsible for the bug
• ONLY modify files directly related to the issue

8b. Fix

• Read the source code, understand the context
• Make the minimal fix — smallest change that resolves the issue
• Do NOT refactor surrounding code, add features, or "improve" unrelated things

8c. Commit

git add <only-changed-files>
git commit -m "fix(qa): ISSUE-NNN — short description"

• One commit per fix. Never bundle multiple fixes.
• Message format: fix(qa): ISSUE-NNN — short description

8d. Re-test

• Navigate back to the affected page
• Take before/after screenshot pair
• Check console for errors
• Use snapshot -D to verify the change had the expected effect

$B goto <affected-url>
$B screenshot "$REPORT_DIR/screenshots/issue-NNN-after.png"
$B console --errors
$B snapshot -D

8e. Classify

• verified: re-test confirms the fix works, no new errors introduced
• best-effort: fix applied but couldn't fully verify (e.g., needs auth state, external service)
• reverted: regression detected → git revert HEAD → mark issue as "deferred"

8e.5. Regression Test

Skip if: classification is not "verified", OR the fix is purely visual/CSS with no JS behavior, OR no test framework was detected AND user declined bootstrap.

1. Study the project's existing test patterns:

Read 2-3 test files closest to the fix (same directory, same code type). Match exactly:

• File naming, imports, assertion style, describe/it nesting, setup/teardown patterns The regression test must look like it was written by the same developer.

2. Trace the bug's codepath, then write a regression test:

Before writing the test, trace the data flow through the code you just fixed:

• What input/state triggered the bug? (the exact precondition)
• What codepath did it follow? (which branches, which function calls)
• Where did it break? (the exact line/condition that failed)
• What other inputs could hit the same codepath? (edge cases around the fix)

The test MUST:

• Set up the precondition that triggered the bug (the exact state that made it break)
• Perform the action that exposed the bug
• Assert the correct behavior (NOT "it renders" or "it doesn't throw")
• If you found adjacent edge cases while tracing, test those too (e.g., null input, empty array, boundary value)
• Include full attribution comment:

  // Regression: ISSUE-NNN — {what broke}
  // Found by /qa on {YYYY-MM-DD}
  // Report: .ostack/qa-reports/qa-report-{domain}-{date}.md
  

Test type decision:

• Console error / JS exception / logic bug → unit or integration test
• Broken form / API failure / data flow bug → integration test with request/response
• Visual bug with JS behavior (broken dropdown, animation) → component test
• Pure CSS → skip (caught by QA reruns)

Generate unit tests. Mock all external dependencies (DB, API, Redis, file system).

Use auto-incrementing names to avoid collisions: check existing {name}.regression-*.test.{ext} files, take max number + 1.

3. Run only the new test file:

{detected test command} {new-test-file}

4. Evaluate:

• Passes → commit: git commit -m "test(qa): regression test for ISSUE-NNN — {desc}"
• Fails → fix test once. Still failing → delete test, defer.
• Taking >2 min exploration → skip and defer.

5. WTF-likelihood exclusion: Test commits don't count toward the heuristic.

8f. Self-Regulation (STOP AND EVALUATE)

Every 5 fixes (or after any revert), compute the WTF-likelihood:

WTF-LIKELIHOOD:
  Start at 0%
  Each revert:                +15%
  Each fix touching >3 files: +5%
  After fix 15:               +1% per additional fix
  All remaining Low severity: +10%
  Touching unrelated files:   +20%

If WTF > 20%: STOP immediately. Show the user what you've done so far. Ask whether to continue.

Hard cap: 50 fixes. After 50 fixes, stop regardless of remaining issues.

---

Phase 9: Final QA

After all fixes are applied:

1. Re-run QA on all affected pages
2. Compute final health score
3. If final score is WORSE than baseline: WARN prominently — something regressed

---

Phase 10: Report

Write the report to both local and project-scoped locations:

Local: .ostack/qa-reports/qa-report-{domain}-{YYYY-MM-DD}.md

Project-scoped: Write test outcome artifact for cross-session context:

eval "$(~/.claude/skills/ostack/bin/ostack-slug 2>/dev/null)" && mkdir -p ~/.ostack/projects/$SLUG

Write to ~/.ostack/projects/{slug}/{user}-{branch}-test-outcome-{datetime}.md

Per-issue additions (beyond standard report template):

• Fix Status: verified / best-effort / reverted / deferred
• Commit SHA (if fixed)
• Files Changed (if fixed)
• Before/After screenshots (if fixed)

Summary section:

• Total issues found
• Fixes applied (verified: X, best-effort: Y, reverted: Z)
• Deferred issues
• Health score delta: baseline → final

PR Summary: Include a one-line summary suitable for PR descriptions:

"QA found N issues, fixed M, health score X → Y."

---

Phase 11: TODOS.md Update

If the repo has a TODOS.md:

1. New deferred bugs → add as TODOs with severity, category, and repro steps
2. Fixed bugs that were in TODOS.md → annotate with "Fixed by /qa on {branch}, {date}"

---

Additional Rules (qa-specific)

11. Clean working tree required. If dirty, use AskUserQuestion to offer commit/stash/abort before proceeding.
12. One commit per fix. Never bundle multiple fixes into one commit.
13. Only modify tests when generating regression tests in Phase 8e.5. Never modify existing tests — only create new test files.
14. Revert on regression. If a fix makes things worse, git revert HEAD immediately.
15. Self-regulate. Follow the WTF-likelihood heuristic. When in doubt, stop and ask.