Sprint QA Plan

!bash "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config --keys automation,workflow,qa.level,system_overrides

Resolved above — use as-is. No block → defaults in .claude/docs/config-resolution.md.

QA Plan

This skill generates a structured QA plan for a sprint, feature, or individual story. It reads all in-scope story files and their referenced GDDs, classifies each story by test type, and produces a plan that tells developers exactly what to automate, what to verify manually, what the smoke test scope is, and when to bring in a playtester.

Run this before a sprint begins so the team knows upfront what testing work is required. A test plan written after implementation is a post-mortem, not a plan.

Output: production/qa/qa-plan-[sprint-slug]-[date].md

Every AskUserQuestion call follows .claude/docs/automation-modes.md (collaborative asks always · guided major-only · autonomous logs and proceeds; automation_always_ask categories always prompt).

Workflow tier: resolve per the GDD's system as each is read (per .claude/docs/workflow-modes.md): workflow_overrides.system_overrides.<system> if the block lists one, else the project value. It sets how many GDD sections the test plan is mined from — see Phase 2.

qa.level: at minimal, produce only a minimal smoke plan — drop the automated-test-required rows and the test-file DoD; at standard, a full plan per story type; at full, also add per-system coverage targets. Distinct axis from workflow (which sets how many GDD sections are mined). No level drops the Visual/Feel and UI screenshot rows — tests are waived at minimal, the look is not (.claude/docs/coding-standards.md).

Phase 1: Parse Scope

Argument: $ARGUMENTS (blank = ask user via AskUserQuestion)

Determine scope from the argument:

• sprint — read the most recent file in production/sprints/, extract every story file path referenced. If production/sprint-status.yaml exists, use it as the primary story list and fall back to the sprint plan for story metadata.
• feature: [system-name] — glob production/epics/*/story-*.md, filter to stories whose file path or title contains the system name. Also check the epic index file (EPIC.md) in that system's directory.
• story: [path] — validate that the path exists and load that single file.
• No argument — use AskUserQuestion:
  • "What is the scope for this QA plan?"
  • Options: "Current sprint", "Specific feature (enter system name)", "Specific story (enter path)", "Full epic"

After resolving scope, report: "Building QA plan for [N] stories in [scope]."

If a story file path is referenced but the file does not exist, note it as MISSING and continue with the remaining stories. Do not fail the entire plan for one missing file.

If the resolved scope contains ZERO stories, stop — do not build a plan. Report NOT ASSESSED — no stories in scope, naming which scope was searched and which path was empty, and route:

• no file in production/sprints/ → "No sprint plan found. Run /sprint-plan new." At workflow: minimal there are no sprints by design — route instead to /qa-plan feature: [epic-slug] or /qa-plan story: [path].
• a sprint plan exists but references no stories → "Sprint plan [path] lists no stories. Run /create-stories [epic-slug]."
• feature:/story: scope matched nothing → name the glob that came back empty.

The N=0 guard is mandatory. Without it an empty scope reports "Building QA plan for 0 stories" and continues into Phase 4, producing a plan document with empty tables — and a QA plan for zero stories looks exactly like a completed QA plan. This skill gates the hand-off to manual QA, so a false-clean here sends a build to QA on the strength of a plan that tested nothing.

Note the shape, because this skill already had the harder half of the rule. Phase 2 states "Never treat an absent section as an absent story" — the sophisticated inner case, correctly handled. The outer boundary, no stories at all, had nothing. The same shape appears in /story-readiness, where NOT ASSESSED existed for per-story failures and the empty scope could not reach it.

The rule at the top of this block still stands: one missing file among several is MISSING-and-continue. This is the different case where there is no several.

Phase 2: Load Inputs

Establish the denominator first — glob the in-scope story files and count N — then collect the fields below with targeted section greps, not a full read of each story. A QA plan needs each story's type and acceptance criteria; it does not need its implementation notes, out-of-scope boundaries or ADR rationale, and reading N stories whole to reach two sections is where this phase's cost lives:

Grep pattern="^## Acceptance Criteria" glob="production/epics/**/story-*.md" output_mode="content" -A 15
Grep pattern="^> \*\*(Type|Status|Estimate)\*\*" glob="production/epics/**/story-*.md" output_mode="content"
Grep pattern="^## (Context|Dependencies)" glob="production/epics/**/story-*.md" output_mode="content" -A 8

(Scope the globs to the sprint plan's story paths in sprint mode.) From those:

• Story title and story ID — from the file name and path; no read at all
• Story Type field — from the header grep (e.g., Type: Logic)
• Acceptance criteria — the complete numbered/bulleted list, from the first grep
• GDD / ADR reference and Dependencies — from the ## Context grep
• Estimate — from the header grep if present
• Implementation files and Engine notes — only needed for stories whose test plan actually turns on them; full-read those individual stories

Never treat an absent section as an absent story. If a story matched no ## Acceptance Criteria, full-read that one and say so — a story with no testable criteria is a QA finding in its own right, not a story to skip.

After reading stories, load supporting context once (not per story):

• design/gdd/systems-index.md — to understand system priorities and which GDDs are approved
• For each unique GDD referenced across all stories: mine test material per that system's workflow tier (resolved above) — at full, mine all 8 sections; at standard, mine the test-relevant subset of the required sections (Acceptance Criteria and Edge Cases always, plus Formulas for any system that defines numeric rules); at minimal, Acceptance Criteria only. Do not load the full GDD text. These sections contain the testable requirements, the math to verify, and the boundary conditions tests must cover. If an Edge Cases section is absent (or not expected at minimal), note per GDD: "No Edge Cases section found — edge case coverage will be inferred from acceptance criteria only."
• docs/architecture/control-manifest.md — scan for forbidden patterns that automated tests should guard against (if the file exists)

If no GDD is referenced in a story, note it as a gap but do not block the plan. The story will be classified using acceptance criteria alone.