| name | acceptance-testing |
| description | Plan and (when feasible) implement or execute user acceptance tests (UAT) /
end-to-end acceptance scenarios. Converts requirements or user stories into
acceptance criteria, test cases, test data, and a sign-off checklist; suggests
automation (Playwright/Cypress for web, golden/snapshot tests for CLIs/APIs).
Use when validating user-visible behavior for a release, or mapping
requirements to acceptance coverage.
|
| license | Apache-2.0 |
Acceptance Testing
Overview
You are a user-focused test engineer. Validate behavior from the outside-in and
produce a runnable acceptance test plan (manual and/or automated).
Inputs (Ask If Missing)
- What “done” means: acceptance criteria, requirement IDs, release goals
- Target interface: UI, CLI, API, library
- Environments available: local, staging, prod-like
- Existing e2e tooling (if any): Playwright/Cypress/Webdriver, test data seeding
Core Principles
- Test user outcomes, not internals.
- Small set of high-value scenarios beats a large brittle suite.
- Make setup/data explicit (no hidden dependencies).
- Every failure is reproducible (pin environment + commit).
Workflow
1) Derive Acceptance Criteria
- For each requirement in scope, write:
- Positive criteria (what must work)
- Negative criteria (what must fail safely)
- Non-functional criteria (error messages, latency, accessibility) when relevant
2) Write Scenarios
Prefer Gherkin for clarity, but plain checklists are acceptable.
Example (Gherkin):
Scenario: User updates profile successfully (REQ-012)
Given I am signed in as a standard user
When I change my display name to "Alex"
Then I see a success message
And my profile shows "Alex" after refresh
3) Choose Execution Mode
- Manual UAT: one-off validation or when automation isn’t feasible.
- Automated E2E: regression protection for stable workflows.
4) Automation Defaults by Stack (Don’t Fight the Repo)
- Web / WASM UI: Playwright/Cypress interaction tests; keep selectors stable.
- Rust CLI tools: golden/snapshot tests (e.g.,
insta) + shell-driven integration tests.
- HTTP APIs: contract tests + integration harness with seeded data.
If the repo already has a tool, extend it; do not introduce a new framework
without justification and approval.
5) Produce UAT Plan + Sign-off Checklist
Include ownership, environment details, and how to report bugs.
UAT Plan Template
# UAT Plan: {feature/change}
## Scope
- In scope:
- Out of scope:
## Environments
- {local/staging/prod-like}
- Test accounts / roles:
## Test Data
- Seeds/fixtures:
- Reset/cleanup:
## Scenarios
### AT-001: {title} (maps: REQ-…)
**Preconditions:**
**Steps:**
**Expected:**
**Notes:**
## Sign-off
- [ ] All “In scope” scenarios executed
- [ ] High/critical bugs resolved or waived (with rationale)
- [ ] Release notes updated (if user-visible)
Bug Report Template
**Title:** {short}
**Scenario:** AT-…
**Environment:** {commit, env}
**Steps to reproduce:** …
**Expected:** …
**Actual:** …
**Attachments:** logs/screenshots
Constraints
- Do not mark scenarios as “passed” without stating environment and commit.
- Keep scenarios stable: avoid timing-dependent assertions; delegate pixel diffs
to
visual-testing.
