本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

bug-bash-facilitator

Builds a structured bug-bash session - pre-bash kit (charter, test-data prep, environment setup, sign-up sheet), in-bash structure (role rotation across cohorts, shared backlog board, real-time triage), scoring rubric (severity weighting, novelty bonus), and a post-bash same-day wrap-up authored by the facilitator (not a standalone debrief: for post-session writeups without a live bash, use the PROOF debrief in exploratory-testing). Use when a team needs a coordinated multi-tester sweep before a release or after a major change - converts an ad-hoc "everyone test for an hour" into a recorded, comparable session with deliverables.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

testland/qaスター 13(GitHub 13 + cccskills 0)
連携ツールStripe

実行スコア 未検証

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(2)

  • SKILL.md11.0 KB
  • .tessl-plugin/plugin.json774 B

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

bug-bash-facilitator

Overview

An unfacilitated bug bash is "everyone clicks around for an hour and we hope something turns up." The result: lots of duplicates, no triage, debrief skipped, no record.

A facilitated bug bash is a structured exploratory session at team scale - multiple testers in coordinated cohorts, shared backlog visible to all, triage in real-time, debrief that produces follow-ups.

This skill builds the kit + structure + scoring + debrief.

When to use

  • Pre-release: a final before-prod sweep across the whole team.
  • Post-major-change: after a refactor / migration / new platform integration.
  • Quarterly: a scheduled "everyone tests for 90 min" cadence.
  • New-tester onboarding: bug-bash as the team's first introduction for new joiners.

If the goal is a single tester running a charter, author a single exploratory charter directly. Bug bashes are the multi-tester / scaled version.

Step 1 - Pre-bash kit (1 week before)

# Bug bash - `<release / feature / area>`

**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Time:** 14:00-15:30 (90 min)
**Environment:** staging.example.com (build `v1.4.5-rc1`)
**Facilitator:** _______________
**Note-taker:** _______________

## Mission

Find regressions, edge cases, and usability issues in the new
checkout flow before the release on YYYY-MM-DD.

## Charters (5 cohorts × 90 min)

Per cohort, 1-2 testers + 1 facilitator-roving:

- **Cohort A - Money:** Apply the Money tour
  across the new checkout discount + tax flow - visit every place
  money / pricing / currency / discount appears and verify each;
  hunts rounding errors, currency-conversion drift, discount
  stacking, free-shipping edges, locale formatting (€1.234,56 vs
  $1,234.56).
- **Cohort B - Bad data:** Apply the Bad-data tour
  across promo code input, address fields, payment fields - feed
  pathological inputs (empty, single space, 5000 chars, SQL
  injection, XSS, unicode bidi override, RTL text, emoji ZWJ
  sequences, null byte) and observe validation + error handling.
- **Cohort C - Configuration:** Vary user state (new vs existing
  account, EU vs US user, mobile vs desktop) and re-run hero flows.
- **Cohort D - Landmark:** Walk the canonical hero flow (search →
  add to cart → checkout → confirmation) under various conditions.
- **Cohort E - Garbage collector:** Visit every page in the
  checkout funnel; flag 404s, broken images, stale strings.

## Test data prep (do BEFORE the bash)

- [ ] Create 5 test accounts with varying states (per
      `synthetic-data-toolkit`):
      `qa-bash-A`, `qa-bash-B`, ..., `qa-bash-E`.
- [ ] Seed promo codes: `WELCOME10`, `EXPIRED50`, `MIN100`,
      `STACKABLE5`.
- [ ] Pre-fund the Stripe test account; expose test cards
      (Stripe test card list).
- [ ] Verify staging is at the right SHA; tag artifact.

## Sign-up sheet

| Cohort | Tester(s)         | Notes |
|--------|-------------------|-------|
| A      |                   |       |
| B      |                   |       |
| ...    |                   |       |

The kit is sent 1 week before so testers can prepare and team members can RSVP. Testers who can't attend live get an async-charter version.

Step 2 - In-bash structure

14:00-14:05  Kickoff (facilitator presents the mission, charters, scoring rubric)
14:05-14:50  Round 1 (each cohort runs its charter; ~45 min)
14:50-15:00  Mid-bash huddle (5-min check-in: what's everyone seeing?)
15:00-15:25  Round 2 (cohorts swap charters; new lens on the same area)
15:25-15:30  Wrap (everyone logs final bugs; facilitator closes the board)

The cohort swap at the midpoint is critical - it's the same testers looking at the area through a fresh lens, and it surfaces bugs that the first cohort's tour missed.

Step 3 - Shared backlog board

A shared spreadsheet / Notion table / GitHub issues view that everyone can see live during the bash:

IDTimeCohortReporterTitleSeverityReproTriageOwnerFinal disposition
114:08AAlicePromo WELCOME10 not appliedhighCart BOOK-001; apply codebugBobBUG-987
214:12BBobPromo input accepts SQL injectionhighType '; DROP-- and applybugBobBUG-988
314:15AAliceSubtotal off by 1 cent on $24.99 + 10%lowApply WELCOME10 to $24.99bugCarolBUG-989
414:20CCarolEU user sees $ symbol instead of €mediumSet locale=EU; checkoutbugDaveBUG-990

The Triage column is filled in real-time by a roving facilitator who decides:

  • bug: confirmed reproducible defect.
  • dup: duplicate of another row.
  • spike: needs a research session (architectural concern, not a fixable defect).
  • quirk: known trade-off or won't-fix; document and close.
  • tbd: needs more investigation.

Real-time triage prevents the debrief from being a giant classification exercise.

Step 4 - Scoring rubric

Optional but motivating: a points system.

Finding typePoints
Critical (data loss, P0)10
High (broken flow)5
Medium (degraded UX)3
Low (cosmetic / minor)1
Novel (no one else thought to check)+2 bonus
Cluster lead (the first row in a 3+-row cluster)+1 bonus
Duplicate (already on board)0

Tally per cohort + per individual at the wrap. The points are explicitly fun, not performance review - but they motivate testers to go beyond the obvious.

Step 5 - Post-bash debrief

Within 24 hours, the facilitator + note-taker produce:

## Bug bash debrief - `<release>`

**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Participants:** N (across 5 cohorts)
**Duration:** 90 min

### Findings summary

| Severity   | Count | Notes |
|------------|------:|-------|
| Critical   |     0 |       |
| High       |     6 | 4 cluster (promo flow); 2 isolated (config) |
| Medium     |    14 |       |
| Low        |    23 | mostly cosmetic / copy issues |
| **Total**  |    43 |       |

### Cluster analysis

| Cluster                | Bugs | Bug IDs                | Owner    | Action |
|------------------------|-----:|------------------------|----------|--------|
| Promo apply edge cases  |    7 | BUG-987, 988, 989, 990, 991, 992, 993 | Bob | Block release until fixed. |
| EU locale bugs           |    3 | BUG-994, 995, 996       | Dave | Fix in current sprint. |
| Cosmetic / copy          |   12 | (per-bug)               | Eve  | Backlog; address over the next 2 sprints. |

### Cohort scoring (per Step 4)

| Cohort | Findings | Points | Top finder |
|--------|---------:|-------:|------------|
| A      |       12 |     34 | Alice (BUG-987 high + 2 cluster lead bonuses) |
| B      |        9 |     27 | Bob (SQL injection - high + novelty) |
| ...    |          |        |            |

### Process retrospective

What went well: ...
What didn't: ...
What to change for next bash: ...

### Action items

- [ ] Bob: fix BUG-987 cluster within 48h (release blocker).
- [ ] Dave: fix EU locale cluster in current sprint.
- [ ] Eve: backlog the 12 cosmetic items for grooming.
- [ ] Facilitator: schedule next bash for `v1.5.0` release.

Step 6 - Async participants

Team members who can't attend live get a mini-charter to run solo within the same week:

# Async bug bash mini-charter - `<release>` (cohort: pick one)

You missed the live bash; here's the 30-min version. Pick a
cohort that wasn't done yet (or revisit one with a new lens).

(charter cohort body)

When done, log findings to the same shared board with
`async` tag.

Async participation isn't ideal (no roving facilitator, no live triage) but it broadens coverage.

Anti-patterns

Anti-patternWhy it failsFix
Open-ended "everyone test for an hour"Heavy duplication; no coverage map; debrief skipped.Cohorts + charters (Step 1).
No real-time triageDebrief becomes a 3-hour classification exercise.Roving facilitator triages live (Step 3).
Scoring as performance reviewTesters chase points, miss high-value bugs.Scoring is for fun + motivation; explicit "not performance" disclaimer.
Bug bash without test-data prepTesters spend half the time creating accounts.Pre-prep test data 1 week ahead (Step 1).
Same-cohort assignments quarter after quarterSame testers find the same bugs.Rotate assignments; mid-bash cohort swap (Step 2).
Post-bash with no follow-up actionsBugs sit in the backlog; team disillusioned by next bash.Action items per cluster owner (Step 5).
Running the bash on a stale buildBugs found are already-fixed; testers waste time.Tag the build SHA; verify staging is current.

Limitations

  • High coordination cost. A bug bash is 90 min of testing × N testers + 1-2 hours facilitator prep + 30 min debrief authoring. Don't run weekly; ~quarterly is the right cadence for most teams.
  • Findings depend on coverage. Cohorts cover what's assigned; gaps invisible. Pair with automated regression for known shapes.
  • Doesn't replace per-feature exploratory. A bash hits breadth; per-feature exploratory hits depth. Both have a place.
  • Async less effective than live. Without live triage and the cohort swap, async finds fewer bugs per hour.

References

  • exploratory-testing - the tours menu the cohorts pick from (references/tours.md) and the PROOF debrief format the bug-bash debrief inherits from (references/debrief.md).
  • synthetic-data-toolkit - used in the test-data-prep step.

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

コメント

ログインなしで書き込めます。使ってみた感想、質問、動かなかった環境などを気軽にどうぞ。

まだコメントはありません。最初のコメントを書いてみませんか。

送信するとすぐに公開されます。メールアドレスや電話番号などの個人情報は書かないでください。URL は 2 つまでです。

0 / 1000 文字

このフォームは reCAPTCHA で保護されており、Google のプライバシーポリシーと利用規約が適用されます。

同じリポジトリのスキル

Builds a CI gate that fails the build on **new** WCAG / a11y violations introduced by a PR while grandfathering pre-existing violations on a per-rule / per-page baseline. Aggregates verdicts from axe-core / pa11y / Lighthouse a11y / WAVE / IBM Equal Access scans. Use when a project has accumulated a11y debt and a strict "zero violations" gate would block every PR - the ratchet pattern lets the team ship while preventing regressions.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

Workflow skill that builds an A/B-test validity checklist from an experiment proposal, walking the canonical design-correctness gates - pre-registered OEC/power/guardrails, randomization unit + SRM check, assignment integrity, telemetry, peeking discipline, novelty/primacy, post-experiment SRM re-check - into a per-experiment checklist + sign-off form. Use when launching, auditing, or governing an experiment. For pitfall mechanics (guardrails, peeking) see experiment-results-interpreter's references; to read an already-valid result use experiment-results-interpreter; for per-SDK harness tests use experiment-sdk-testing - this gates DESIGN, not SDK code.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

The single install-flow skill: the reference contract for the PWA install flow (installability gate fields, `beforeinstallprompt` handshake, per-platform paths - Android WebAPK / iOS Share menu / Firefox no-op - and the `display-mode` post-install signal, in references/install-flow-reference.md) plus the build-an-X workflow that emits the Add-to-Home-Screen suite. Walks the four-stage timeline, emitting one test per gate cell per [web.dev/articles/install-criteria][install-criteria], the deferred-prompt → `prompt()` → `userChoice` chain per [web.dev/articles/customize-install][customize-install], the iOS Safari manual-metadata branch (`apple-touch-icon`) per [web.dev/learn/pwa/installation][learn-pwa], and the post-install `(display-mode: standalone)` MQ assertion. Output: a Playwright spec with per-stage cells plus a coverage matrix. Use when a PWA's manifest, icons, or install handler change, when install conversion drops at an unknown stage, or when triaging a flaky install assertion.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

Build-an-X workflow that uses an LLM to map existing tests to spec sections - given a spec doc + the test suite, the LLM identifies which tests cover which sections, surfaces uncovered sections (gap), and recommends specific tests to add. Output is a coverage matrix per spec ID. Scope is mapping tests that already exist and naming the gaps, not authoring tests for new acceptance criteria. Use when a spec doc and a test suite both exist but nobody can say which requirements are actually covered - before a release sign-off, an audit, or a decision about where to spend the next round of test effort.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

Generates tests from natural-language specs (acceptance criteria, user stories, requirements) using an LLM, with confidence scoring per test case (LLM self-assessment plus heuristics: assertion quality, naming, completeness), batching uncertain cases for human review, and integration with the team's existing test framework. Use when the user asks to generate unit tests from acceptance criteria, convert user stories to test cases, automate test creation from requirements, or augment a spec-driven test suite with AI-generated stubs that are then curated before merge.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

Configures Allure Report (test-runner adapter install, `allure-results` directory wiring, `categories.json` for failure classification, `history-trend.json` retention via the copy-history-between-runs pattern), runs the Allure CLI to convert `allure-results` to a static HTML site, and uploads the report as a CI artifact. Use when the team needs richer test reporting than JUnit XML - step-level attachments, per-test history, retry tracking, and severity / epic / feature labeling across framework-agnostic adapters (pytest, Jest, JUnit, TestNG, NUnit, Mocha). As a rich static HTML report generator, it is the open-source alternative to the sunset ExtentReports (JVM/.NET per-test HTML narrative); for hosted cross-run flakiness analytics rather than a static per-run report use currents-integration.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

testland のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する