Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHubEnglish overview

qa-acceptance

Create acceptance criteria and a manual validation plan for feature changes. Cover successful flows, unusual inputs, failures, and performance limits, with observable outcomes and clear evidence requirements so reviewers can decide whether each criterion passes.

OriginalShow the original description

Produce QA acceptance criteria and a manual validation plan for a feature change — golden path, edge cases, error states, performance limits, and explicit pass/fail evidence.

paperclipai/paperclip
AI rating100/ 100See how to install

Good for

  • Preparing a feature change for QA
  • Reviewing a PR that changes user-visible behavior
  • Planning regression checks after an incident
  • Running basic checks before a release

Overview

What it does

Creates acceptance criteria and a manual validation plan for feature changes so reviewers can operate the running app and decide whether it passes. Each criterion identifies a starting state, an action, and an observable result that can be checked independently. Coverage includes successful flows, empty data, boundary inputs, errors, concurrent actions, performance, compatibility with existing data, and logs or events.

When it helps

Use it when handing a new feature to QA or reviewing a PR that changes behavior users can see. It also supports checks for recurrence after an incident and basic checks before release. Explicit must-pass conditions help reduce missed checks and unclear judgments.

Example requests

  • “Create acceptance criteria and a manual validation plan for CSV export.”
  • “List the error states and performance limits to check for this change.”
  • “Group results as pass, fail, or blocked, with evidence and reproduction steps.”

Notes

Internal renaming, unit-test-only changes, and API contract test design are outside its scope. Passing requires evidence such as screens, network output, logs, or elapsed time. Waiving a failure requires a tracked follow-up issue. If criteria are added during validation, the checks must restart from the beginning.

This overview was written by AI (OpenAI Codex) from the public SKILL.md. Check the original below for the exact behavior.

Objective evaluation

AI rated this skill on four points using only the contents of its SKILL.md. Stars and popularity are not taken into account.

Clear instructionsIs it clear when to use it and what it does?
AGoodIt explicitly identifies uses such as QA handoff and the purpose of writing acceptance criteria.
Concrete stepsAre steps, inputs, outputs, and examples spelled out?
AGoodIt specifies the starting-state/action/result format, eight coverage areas, evidence requirements, and reporting categories.
SafetyAre sending data, deleting files, and running commands disclosed?
AGoodThe instructions focus on criteria and validation plans, with no directions to delete files or read credentials.
Easy setupDoes it need few tools or API keys, and are they documented?
AGoodNo specific tools or API keys are required for planning; validation targets the running app.

The total counts each point as A = 25, B = 15, C = 5. Rated by AI (OpenAI Codex) as of Oct 20, 2026. Treat it as a guide and read the original before installing.

Disagree? Request a re-evaluation

Tell us which point is wrong and why. No login needed. We will check it against the SKILL.md, redo the evaluation, and show the result here.

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

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md3.8 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

QA Acceptance

Write acceptance criteria that a reviewer can run against the running app and decide pass or fail without asking the author. The criteria are the contract — automated tests cover correctness, QA covers feature-level behavior.

When to use

  • A feature change is heading to QA and needs a written validation plan.
  • A reviewer is asked to verify a PR that touches user-visible behavior.
  • An incident postmortem requires a regression check before reopen-prevention.
  • A release candidate needs a pre-cut smoke pass.

When not to use

  • The change is unit-test-only (utility refactor, internal naming). Acceptance criteria are unnecessary churn.
  • You are asked to write tests against API contracts. Use contract testing, not feature QA.

Acceptance criteria format

Each criterion is a single, independently-verifiable statement:

- **Given** <starting state>, **when** <action>, **then** <observable outcome>.

Example:

- **Given** a CSV export with 0 rows, **when** the user clicks Export, **then** the file downloads with only the header row and the UI shows "Exported 0 rows".

Avoid criteria that combine multiple whens or thens. Split them.

What every plan must cover

  1. Golden path. The most common successful flow, end to end.
  2. Empty and minimum states. Zero items, one item, missing optional inputs.
  3. Boundary inputs. Max length strings, max numeric values, unicode, RTL text where applicable.
  4. Error states. Network failure, permission denied, validation failures, conflict (409), not found (404).
  5. Concurrency and ordering. Two users acting at once, race against background jobs, refresh during mutation.
  6. Performance envelope. The largest realistic input the change must handle without UI hangs or timeouts.
  7. Backward compatibility. Existing data, existing URLs, persisted user preferences continue to work.
  8. Telemetry and audit. Events, logs, or activity entries the change is supposed to emit.

If a section is genuinely not applicable, write "N/A: <why>" — do not silently omit.

Evidence

Each criterion needs evidence on the verification pass:

  • Screenshot or short clip for UI behavior.
  • Copied console / network output for API behavior.
  • Log snippet or activity row for telemetry.
  • Timing measurement for performance criteria.

"Looks good to me" without evidence is not a pass.

Quarantine and follow-up

  • A failing criterion blocks acceptance unless explicitly waived by the owner with a tracked follow-up issue.
  • "Known issue" without a linked follow-up is not a waiver.
  • If you add a new criterion mid-pass, restart the pass — partial coverage hides regressions.

Handoff back to the author

Return the validation plan with three sections:

  • Pass. Criteria that passed, with one-line evidence summaries.
  • Fail. Criteria that failed, with the exact reproduction.
  • Blocked. Criteria you could not run, with why.

The author owns turning failures into either fixes or accepted deferrals.

Anti-patterns

  • Acceptance phrased as test plan ("write a Cypress test for X"). Acceptance is what is true after the change ships; tests are how you check.
  • Criteria that depend on inspecting implementation details (selectors, query plans). Stay observable.
  • Long checklists with no priority. Mark must-pass criteria distinctly from nice-to-have.
  • Validation reports that say "passed" with no evidence. Reviewers cannot audit those.

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

add-product-e2e-eval

FreeSummaryAI rating 90

Add or extend Paperclip end-to-end evaluations that exercise real browser workflows across the server, database, and runner. Define expected outcomes, check independent evidence, and connect results to the existing reporting pipeline for local or Daytona execution.

  • Adding an evaluation for a complete user workflow
  • Updating test data and outcome checks
  • Including screenshots and artifacts in evaluation reports
paperclipai/paperclip105.3KUpdated Oct 20, 2026

add-runner-eval

FreeSummaryAI rating 90

Add or extend Paperclip Runner evaluations that test real sessions against a mock control service. Define observable pass conditions, validate cases and run selections, and retain source revisions, evidence, and costs for authorized live runs.

  • Adding a focused Runner protocol evaluation
  • Testing grading rules with valid and invalid evidence
  • Updating evaluation selections and campaign membership
paperclipai/paperclip105.3KUpdated Oct 20, 2026

agent-browser

FreeSummaryAI rating 90

Use a real browser to verify web pages and apps through short, supervised interactions. Capture screenshots, inspect errors and network requests, and document reproducible steps for UI bugs or expected behavior checks.

  • Capture screenshots to verify UI changes
  • Read content rendered by JavaScript
  • Reproduce UI bugs and record errors
paperclipai/paperclip105.3KUpdated Oct 20, 2026

agentmail

FreeSummaryAI rating 100

Read email linked to assigned Paperclip tasks, send new messages or replies through an assigned AgentMail inbox, and check delivery outcomes. Follow task permissions and preserve retry identifiers to avoid duplicate sends.

  • Reading email context attached to an assigned task
  • Sending a new email from an assigned inbox
  • Replying to a specific message in a conversation
paperclipai/paperclip105.3KUpdated Oct 20, 2026

check-pr

FreeSummaryAI rating 80

Inspect proposed changes in GitHub, GitLab, or Perforce for review feedback, failed automated checks, and incomplete descriptions. It separates actionable findings from informational or resolved comments, then helps fix issues and close addressed review threads when requested.

  • Inspect a change before submission
  • Identify failed checks and required fixes
  • Organize human and bot review feedback
paperclipai/paperclip105.3KUpdated Oct 20, 2026

company-creator

FreeSummaryAI rating 100

Create an AI agent company or team package from an idea or an existing repository. Define roles, reporting lines, skills, and work handoffs, then generate structured files that follow the Agent Companies specification.

  • Build an agent company from an idea
  • Turn a repository into an agent team package
  • Define agent roles and work handoffs
paperclipai/paperclip105.3KUpdated Oct 20, 2026

See all skills by paperclipai

Report a problem with this skill