Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

retest-after-revision

Use when the task came back to QA after need_revision - what to re-run, what may carry over, and how to keep old passes from approving new code

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

See how to install

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md2.1 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Retest After Revision

A resubmitted task carries history: earlier passed test cases (matched by title) and criterion approvals marked approved (as of SHA, changed since: files). Neither is free evidence for this round — a stale pass is exactly what lets a fixed bug reappear unnoticed, or a different bug ship under an old verdict.

Procedure

  1. list_test_cases and the criteria lines — read every "changed since" note; it names the files touched since the last approval.
  2. get_task_pull_request for the changed-file list (this is the named re-test-scope exception, not a code-reading shortcut for the verdict).
  3. Re-run first every case that failed last round, using its original reproduction. Bug fixed → prove it by testing the original symptom, not a nearby path.
  4. Re-run every case linked to a criterion whose changed-files list touches shared surface: styles/tokens/theme, layout/router, API client, auth/session, migrations/schema, env/config, package manifests/lockfile, i18n catalogues. This is what "plausibly affects" means in practice — a concrete file-category list, not a feeling.
  5. Run the regression smoke set (regression-checklist).
  6. Re-send every re-run case with its new result and evidence, prefixed by the new short SHA. A case you deliberately did not re-run keeps its old result only if its criterion line already says "nothing changed since", or its own notes record why the diff cannot reach it — say which, don't just skip silently.
  7. New behaviour the fix introduced gets new cases, same as any other round.

Red Flags

  • Approving a criterion whose line says "changed since" without a fresh run this round.
  • Re-running only the case that failed last time when the fix touched a shared file (styles, auth, migrations, …) that many other cases depend on.
  • Trusting the developer's "fixed it" without re-running the original failing reproduction.

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Use when writing acceptance criteria for a task - express each as an observable Given/When/Then that QA can execute, including negative cases

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

makifbaysal/tasktrooper118Updated Oct 21, 2026

Use when the diff adds or changes an endpoint, resolver, RPC, job or query that takes an object id, a role check, a request binding or a tenant filter - BOLA/IDOR, function-level authorization, mass assignment and tenant scoping

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

makifbaysal/tasktrooper118Updated Oct 21, 2026

Use on every UI change - semantic HTML, labels for controls, keyboard-navigable dialogs/menus, visible focus, and never color as the only signal

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

makifbaysal/tasktrooper118Updated Oct 21, 2026

Use when a task changes any screen, form, dialog, menu or control - Lighthouse/axe scan of the changed screens, a keyboard walk, and the thresholds that fail a task

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

makifbaysal/tasktrooper118Updated Oct 21, 2026

How to work a task returned with review, QA or UAT findings. Use when a task is in need_revision or PR review comments are in your context.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

makifbaysal/tasktrooper118Updated Oct 21, 2026

Use when the repository keeps its alerting in code, or a person asks for alerts outside TaskTrooper - PrometheusRule YAML, a Cloud Monitoring alert policy in Terraform, a Datadog monitor, each routed to TaskTrooper's alert ingest URL so it opens an incident here

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

makifbaysal/tasktrooper118Updated Oct 21, 2026

See all skills by makifbaysal

Report a problem with this skill