| name | prd-v07-test-planning |
| description | Define test cases BEFORE implementation, ensuring every API, business rule, and user journey has verifiable acceptance criteria during PRD v0.7 Build Execution. Triggers on requests to define tests, plan test coverage, create test cases, or when user asks "define tests", "test planning", "what to test?", "test cases", "test coverage", "TEST-", "test-first". Consumes EPIC- (scope), API-, DBT-, BR-, UJ-. Outputs TEST- entries with Given-When-Then format. Feeds v0.7 Implementation Loop. |
| context | fork |
| allowed-tools | ["Read","Write","Edit","Glob","Grep","Bash"] |
Test Planning
Position in workflow: v0.7 Epic Scoping → v0.7 Test Planning → v0.7 Implementation Loop
Consumes
This skill requires prior work from v0.7 Epic Scoping and v0.6 specifications:
- EPIC-* entries (from v0.7 Epic Scoping) — EPIC scope defines test boundaries; test plan must cover all APIs/BRs/UJs within EPIC Context & IDs section
- API-* endpoint contracts (from v0.6 Technical Specification) — Each endpoint has request/response shape and error codes that must be tested
- DBT-* data model specifications (from v0.6 Technical Specification) — Schema constraints, relationships, and business rules enforce data integrity tests
- BR-* business rules (from v0.3 Commercial Model) — Each rule must have at least one test verifying positive (rule allows) and negative (rule blocks) cases
- UJ-* user journey entries (from v0.4 User Journeys) — Critical journeys need E2E tests verifying complete flow from trigger to value moment
This skill assumes EPIC- entries are complete with full API-/DBT-/BR-/UJ- references in Context & IDs section.
Produces
This skill creates/updates:
- TEST-* entries (test case specifications, automation path) — Concrete, verifiable test cases with Given-When-Then format, test type, and coverage mapping to upstream IDs
- Test coverage matrix (per EPIC) — Validation showing every API- endpoint, BR- rule, and core UJ- journey has TEST- entries; identifies gaps
- Test automation specification — For each Critical/High priority TEST-, identifies test file path and automation framework (unit/integration/E2E)
All TEST- entries are acceptance criteria specifications, not confidence-based. They are:
- Derivable from upstream IDs (every TEST- ties to specific API-/BR-/UJ-/DBT-)
- Executable (Given-When-Then format is testable; automation paths are specified)
- Complete for acceptance (passing all TEST- for EPIC means EPIC is done)
- Focused on behavior (tests what the system does, not implementation details)
Example TEST- entry (API endpoint test):
TEST-001: User creation succeeds with valid data
Type: Integration
Tests: API-001 (POST /users), BR-001 (email uniqueness), DBT-010 (users table)
EPIC: EPIC-01
Given: No user with email "test@example.com" exists, database ready
When: POST /api/users with { email: "test@example.com", password: "Valid123!" }
Then:
- Response status: 201 Created
- Response body contains user id and email
- User record exists in DBT-010 (users table)
- Password is hashed, not plaintext
- Email verification email queued
Validation Method: Automated
Automation: tests/api/users.test.ts (Integration test)
Priority: Critical
Example TEST- entry (Business rule test):
TEST-005: Password validation enforces minimum length
Type: Unit
Tests: BR-002 (password requirements)
EPIC: EPIC-01
Given: Password validation function configured per BR-002
When: Validate password "weak" (length 4)
Then:
- Returns validation failure
- Error message: "Password must be at least 8 characters"
- No user record created
Validation Method: Automated
Automation: tests/unit/validation.test.ts
Priority: High
Example TEST- entry (User journey E2E test):
TEST-010: Onboarding journey completes successfully
Type: E2E
Tests: UJ-000 (onboarding), API-001 (signup), API-002 (login), SCR-001 (dashboard)
EPIC: EPIC-01
Given: New user on signup page, all services ready
When: User enters email/password → submits → verifies email → enters profile info → confirms
Then:
- User redirected to dashboard (SCR-001)
- Welcome message displayed with user name
- User session is active and persisted
- KPI-001 (activation) event tracked with timestamp
- UJ-000 completion confirmed
Validation Method: Both (Automated + manual verification of final state)
Automation: tests/e2e/onboarding.spec.ts
Priority: Critical
Core Principle: Test-First
Tests are not an afterthought. They are the contract that defines what "done" means.
If you can't write the test, you don't understand the requirement.
Write TEST- entries before writing code. This forces clarity about what you're building.
If you cannot write a concrete Given-When-Then for a specification, the requirement is ambiguous. Do not write a vague test and move on. Instead, identify the specific ID (API-XXX, BR-XXX) that is unclear, note the competing interpretations, and log an AMBIGUITY in the EPIC's Assumptions & Ambiguities table. A test you cannot write precisely is more valuable as a flagged gap than a test you write by guessing.
Test Types
| Type | What It Tests | When to Use | Scope |
|---|
| Unit | Single function/method | Business logic, calculations | Smallest unit |
| Integration | Component boundaries | API ↔ Database | Module level |
| E2E | Full user flow | Critical journeys | System level |
| Contract | API shape/types | External integrations | Interface level |
| Performance | Speed/load | Critical paths | Benchmark |
Coverage Requirements
| ID Type | Minimum Coverage | Rationale |
|---|
| API- | 1 happy path + 1 error case per endpoint | Endpoints are integration points |
| BR- | 1 test per rule, including boundary cases | Rules are product logic |
| UJ- | 1 E2E test per core journey | Journeys are user value |
| DBT- | Constraint tests for critical fields | Data integrity is foundational |
Test Planning Process
-
Pull EPIC- scope
- Which APIs, DBTs, BRs are included?
-
For each API-: Define request/response tests
- Happy path: Valid input → expected output
- Error cases: Invalid input, auth failures, not found
- Verify first: Can you state the exact response body shape and every error code from the spec? If API- says "returns error" without specifying the code/shape, flag it: "API-XXX spec missing [specific gap]." Do not invent details.
-
For each BR-: Define rule validation tests
- Positive: Rule allows expected behavior
- Negative: Rule blocks invalid behavior
- Boundary: Edge cases at limits
-
For each UJ-: Define end-to-end flow tests
- Complete journey from trigger to value moment
-
For each DBT-: Define data integrity tests
- Constraints enforced (unique, not null)
- Relationships maintained (FK integrity)
-
Create TEST- entries linked to implementation IDs
-
Add TEST- references back to EPIC-
TEST- Output Template
TEST-XXX: [Test Name]
Type: [Unit | Integration | E2E | Contract | Performance]
Tests: [API-XXX | BR-XXX | UJ-XXX | DBT-XXX]
EPIC: [EPIC-XXX]
Given: [Preconditions — initial state]
When: [Action/trigger — what happens]
Then: [Expected outcome — what should result]
Validation Method: [Automated | Manual | Both]
Automation: [Test file path when implemented]
Priority: [Critical | High | Medium | Low]
Example TEST- entries:
TEST-001: User creation succeeds with valid data
Type: Integration
Tests: API-001 (POST /users), BR-001 (email uniqueness)
EPIC: EPIC-01
Given: No user with email "test@example.com" exists
When: POST /api/users with { email: "test@example.com", password: "Valid123!" }
Then:
- Response status: 201 Created
- Response body contains user id and email
- User record exists in DBT-010 (users)
- Password is hashed (not plaintext)
Validation Method: Automated
Automation: tests/api/users.test.ts
Priority: Critical
TEST-002: User creation fails with duplicate email
Type: Integration
Tests: API-001, BR-001 (email uniqueness)
EPIC: EPIC-01
Given: User with email "existing@example.com" already exists
When: POST /api/users with { email: "existing@example.com", password: "Valid123!" }
Then:
- Response status: 409 Conflict
- Response body: { error: { code: "EMAIL_EXISTS", message: "..." } }
- No new user record created
Validation Method: Automated
Automation: tests/api/users.test.ts
Priority: Critical
TEST-003: User creation fails with weak password
Type: Unit
Tests: BR-002 (password requirements)
EPIC: EPIC-01
Given: Password validation function
When: Validate password "weak"
Then:
- Returns false
- Error message indicates minimum length requirement
Validation Method: Automated
Automation: tests/unit/validation.test.ts
Priority: High
TEST-010: Onboarding journey completes successfully
Type: E2E
Tests: UJ-000 (onboarding)
EPIC: EPIC-01
Given: New user on signup page
When: User completes signup → email verification → profile setup
Then:
- User arrives at dashboard (SCR-001)
- Welcome message displayed
- User session is active
- KPI-001 (activation) event tracked
Validation Method: Both (Automated + Manual verification)
Automation: tests/e2e/onboarding.spec.ts
Priority: Critical
Test Priority Framework
| Priority | Criteria | Example |
|---|
| Critical | Breaks core value, data loss possible | Auth, payments, data creation |
| High | Blocks key journey, user-facing error | Onboarding, main features |
| Medium | Degrades experience, workaround exists | Settings, secondary features |
| Low | Edge case, admin-only, cosmetic | Rare scenarios, admin tools |
Writing Good Given-When-Then
Good Examples
Given: User is logged in and has 3 existing reports
When: User clicks "Create Report" and fills required fields
Then: 4 reports now exist, new report appears at top of list
Given: User has reached the free tier limit of 5 reports
When: User attempts to create a 6th report
Then: Error message shows "Upgrade to create more reports"
Create button is disabled
Upgrade CTA is displayed
Bad Examples
Given: The system is working
When: User does something
Then: It works correctly
(Too vague — what does "working" mean?)
Given: User
When: API
Then: Success
(No specifics — useless as a test spec)
Suspicious: Looks Good But Smuggles Assumptions
Given: User has 3 reports, account is on "Pro" plan
When: User clicks "Export All" and selects "PDF"
Then: 3 PDF files generated, each under 10MB, with company logo
Ask: Does BR-XXX or API-XXX actually specify PDF format? Does any spec mention a 10MB limit or company logo? If these details came from the agent's assumptions rather than spec IDs, the test is encoding unreviewed requirements. Either add the details to the spec (making them reviewable) or remove them from the test.
Test Categories by EPIC Phase
For Database Schema (Window 1)
TEST-XXX: [Table] enforces [constraint]
TEST-XXX: [Table] allows valid data
TEST-XXX: RLS policy restricts access correctly
For API Endpoints (Window 2)
TEST-XXX: [Method] [Path] returns [status] for [scenario]
TEST-XXX: [Method] [Path] enforces [BR-XXX]
TEST-XXX: [Method] [Path] handles [error case]
For UI Integration (Window 3)
TEST-XXX: [Screen] loads data from [API-XXX]
TEST-XXX: [Form] validates input per [BR-XXX]
TEST-XXX: [UJ-XXX] completes end-to-end
Anti-Patterns to Avoid
| Anti-Pattern | Signal | Fix |
|---|
| Tests after code | "We'll add tests later" | Define TEST- before writing code |
| Only happy path | No error case tests | Every API needs at least 1 error test |
| Orphaned tests | TEST- not linked to API-/BR-/UJ- | Every test must trace to a spec ID |
| Test explosion | 200+ tests for MVP | Focus on critical paths; 30-50 typical |
| Vague assertions | "System works correctly" | Specific, measurable outcomes |
| No automation path | Manual-only critical tests | Critical tests must be automatable |
| Testing implementation | Test verifies internal details | Test behavior, not implementation |
| Tests from assumptions | TEST- contains details not in any spec | Every assertion must trace to API-/BR-/UJ-. Missing detail? Fix the spec first. |
Quality Gates
Before proceeding to Implementation Loop:
Downstream Connections
TEST- entries feed into:
| Consumer | What It Uses | Example |
|---|
| Implementation Loop | TEST- defines acceptance criteria | EPIC done when TEST-001–010 pass |
| EPIC Validation (Phase D) | TEST- list for validation checklist | Run all TEST- for EPIC |
| CI/CD | TEST- becomes automated suite | TEST- entries → test files |
| Code Review | TEST- as review checklist | "Does PR pass TEST-005?" |
Detailed References
- Test planning examples: See
references/examples.md
- TEST- entry template: See
assets/test.md
- Test type decision guide: See
references/test-types.md
