QA Discovery Interview
Purpose
QA-adapted discovery interview that transforms vague project context into a structured QA brief through iterative, category-driven questioning. Works in two modes:
- Standalone: User directly starts an interview for a new project or feature
- Embedded: Other skills auto-delegate here when their input is insufficient (<3 sentences or missing critical context)
Trigger Phrases
- "Start QA discovery interview"
- "Interview me about the project"
- "I need to set up QA for a new project"
- "Help me define testing scope"
- "QA brief for [project/feature]"
- "What should we test?"
- "New project QA setup"
Dual-Use Pattern
| Mode |
Trigger |
Output |
| Standalone |
User: "Start a QA discovery interview for our payment system" |
Full QA Discovery Brief |
| Embedded |
qa-requirements-generator receives <3 sentences of input |
Notify user → offer interview → feed brief back to calling skill |
Embedding Pattern for Other Skills
When another skill detects insufficient input:
- Notify user: "Not enough context for quality output."
- Offer: "I can run a QA discovery interview, or you can provide more details manually."
- If interview chosen → run interview → feed QA Brief output back into the calling skill.
Skills that auto-trigger this interview:
qa-requirements-generator (from-description mode with <3 sentences)
qa-spec-writer (ambiguous requirements or incomplete acceptance criteria)
qa-plan-creator (no requirements, no codebase, no prior docs)
qa-test-strategy (first run on a project with no existing docs)
qa-orchestrator (full-cycle pipeline with no existing QA documentation)
Interview Phases
| Phase |
Name |
Description |
| 1 |
Initial QA Orientation |
2-3 broad questions: what are we testing, who are stakeholders, new or existing project |
| 2 |
Category Deep Dive |
8 QA categories, 2-4 questions each (see references/qa-categories.md) |
| 3 |
Research Loops |
When uncertainty detected — research codebase/docs, return with informed questions |
| 4 |
Conflict Resolution |
Resolve priority conflicts, scope creep, unrealistic expectations |
| 5 |
Completeness Check |
QA-specific checklist before generating output (see references/completeness-checklist.md) |
| 6 |
QA Brief Generation |
Structured document that feeds Phase 1 skills |
Workflow
Phase 1: Initial QA Orientation (2-3 questions)
Start with broad orientation to establish context:
- "What product/feature are we testing? Give me a brief overview."
- "Is this a new project, an existing one, or a migration? What's the current state?"
- "Who are the key stakeholders, and what are their quality expectations?"
Based on answers, determine which of the 8 categories need deepest exploration.
Phase 2: Category Deep Dive
Work through 8 QA categories adaptively. Skip or abbreviate categories where context is already clear. Spend more time on gaps and risk areas.
See references/qa-categories.md for full question sets per category.
Category summary:
| Cat |
Name |
Focus |
| A |
Problem & Product |
Business context, impact of defects |
| B |
Testing Scope & Objectives |
Testing types needed, in/out scope |
| C |
User Flows & Critical Paths |
Core scenarios, happy/unhappy paths |
| D |
Technical Landscape |
Stack, architecture, constraints, APIs |
| E |
Existing QA Processes |
Current CI/CD, automation, tools |
| F |
Risk Areas & Priorities |
Defect-prone areas, business criticality |
| G |
Team, Tools & Infrastructure |
Team expertise, environments, tools |
| H |
Compliance & Standards |
WCAG, OWASP, ISO, GDPR, industry |
Adaptive behavior:
- Ask 2-4 questions per category (not all at once — batch by relevance)
- After each answer, decide: go deeper, move to next category, or trigger research loop
- When answer reveals uncertainty: pause, research (read code, docs, URLs), return with informed follow-up
Phase 3: Research Loops
When the interviewee mentions something that requires verification:
- Read codebase (project structure, API routes, test files, configs)
- Navigate URLs via Playwright MCP (if a live app exists)
- Read documentation files in the project
- Return with specific, informed follow-up questions
Phase 4: Conflict Resolution
Identify and resolve conflicts in stated requirements:
- Scope vs timeline conflicts ("we want full coverage in 2 days")
- Priority misalignment (everything is "critical")
- Unrealistic automation expectations
- Missing infrastructure for stated testing types
See references/conflict-patterns.md for common patterns and resolution strategies.
Phase 5: Completeness Check
Before generating the brief, verify all critical areas are covered. See references/completeness-checklist.md.
Phase 6: QA Brief Generation
Generate the structured QA Discovery Brief using templates/qa-brief-template.md.
Output
QA Discovery Brief (markdown) — the primary handoff document. Contains:
- Project/product overview
- Testing scope and objectives
- Critical user flows and scenarios
- Technical constraints and environment
- Risk assessment and priorities
- Compliance requirements
- Recommended testing types and approach
- Team and infrastructure summary
This brief feeds directly into: qa-requirements-generator, qa-spec-writer, qa-plan-creator, qa-test-strategy.
MCP Tools Used
- Sequential Thinking MCP: Structured reasoning during deep dive and conflict resolution
- Playwright MCP: Research loops — navigate live app to verify answers
- Filesystem MCP: Research loops — read codebase, docs, configs
- Memory MCP: Persist interview state for multi-session interviews
Scope
Can do (autonomous):
- Conduct full discovery interview through all 6 phases
- Adapt question depth based on answers
- Research codebase and live app during interview
- Generate structured QA Discovery Brief
- Serve as embedded service for other skills
Cannot do (requires confirmation):
- Make scope decisions on behalf of stakeholders
- Set final priorities without stakeholder input
- Skip categories the user explicitly wants to discuss
Will not do (out of scope):
- Write test code or create test cases (hand off to downstream skills)
- Modify production systems
- Make business decisions about product direction
Quality Checklist
Troubleshooting
| Symptom |
Likely Cause |
Fix |
| Interview feels too long |
Too many categories explored in depth |
Adapt: skip/abbreviate clear categories, focus on gaps |
| Interviewee gives vague answers |
Unclear questions or unfamiliar domain |
Rephrase with concrete examples; offer multiple-choice options |
| Conflicting priorities discovered |
Stakeholder misalignment |
Enter Phase 4: present conflicts explicitly, ask for resolution |
| Research loop finds no codebase |
New project, no code yet |
Skip code research, focus on specs/mockups/descriptions |
| Embedded trigger too aggressive |
Skill triggers interview on minimal input |
Check threshold: <3 sentences AND missing critical context (both conditions) |
| Brief too shallow for downstream |
Rushed interview or skipped categories |
Re-run completeness check, fill gaps with follow-up questions |
1---2name: qa-discovery-interview3description: QA-adapted discovery interview that transforms vague context into structured QA briefs through iterative questioning. Works standalone or as an embedded service auto-triggered by other skills when input is insufficient.4---56# QA Discovery Interview78## Purpose910QA-adapted discovery interview that transforms vague project context into a structured QA brief through iterative, category-driven questioning. Works in two modes:11- **Standalone:** User directly starts an interview for a new project or feature12- **Embedded:** Other skills auto-delegate here when their input is insufficient (<3 sentences or missing critical context)1314## Trigger Phrases1516- "Start QA discovery interview"17- "Interview me about the project"18- "I need to set up QA for a new project"19- "Help me define testing scope"20- "QA brief for [project/feature]"21- "What should we test?"22- "New project QA setup"2324## Dual-Use Pattern2526| Mode | Trigger | Output |27|------|---------|--------|28| **Standalone** | User: "Start a QA discovery interview for our payment system" | Full QA Discovery Brief |29| **Embedded** | qa-requirements-generator receives <3 sentences of input | Notify user → offer interview → feed brief back to calling skill |3031### Embedding Pattern for Other Skills3233When another skill detects insufficient input:34351. Notify user: "Not enough context for quality output."362. Offer: "I can run a QA discovery interview, or you can provide more details manually."373. If interview chosen → run interview → feed QA Brief output back into the calling skill.3839Skills that auto-trigger this interview:40- `qa-requirements-generator` (from-description mode with <3 sentences)41- `qa-spec-writer` (ambiguous requirements or incomplete acceptance criteria)42- `qa-plan-creator` (no requirements, no codebase, no prior docs)43- `qa-test-strategy` (first run on a project with no existing docs)44- `qa-orchestrator` (full-cycle pipeline with no existing QA documentation)4546## Interview Phases4748| Phase | Name | Description |49|-------|------|-------------|50| 1 | **Initial QA Orientation** | 2-3 broad questions: what are we testing, who are stakeholders, new or existing project |51| 2 | **Category Deep Dive** | 8 QA categories, 2-4 questions each (see `references/qa-categories.md`) |52| 3 | **Research Loops** | When uncertainty detected — research codebase/docs, return with informed questions |53| 4 | **Conflict Resolution** | Resolve priority conflicts, scope creep, unrealistic expectations |54| 5 | **Completeness Check** | QA-specific checklist before generating output (see `references/completeness-checklist.md`) |55| 6 | **QA Brief Generation** | Structured document that feeds Phase 1 skills |5657## Workflow5859### Phase 1: Initial QA Orientation (2-3 questions)6061Start with broad orientation to establish context:62631. "What product/feature are we testing? Give me a brief overview."642. "Is this a new project, an existing one, or a migration? What's the current state?"653. "Who are the key stakeholders, and what are their quality expectations?"6667Based on answers, determine which of the 8 categories need deepest exploration.6869### Phase 2: Category Deep Dive7071Work through 8 QA categories adaptively. Skip or abbreviate categories where context is already clear. Spend more time on gaps and risk areas.7273See `references/qa-categories.md` for full question sets per category.7475**Category summary:**7677| Cat | Name | Focus |78|-----|------|-------|79| A | Problem & Product | Business context, impact of defects |80| B | Testing Scope & Objectives | Testing types needed, in/out scope |81| C | User Flows & Critical Paths | Core scenarios, happy/unhappy paths |82| D | Technical Landscape | Stack, architecture, constraints, APIs |83| E | Existing QA Processes | Current CI/CD, automation, tools |84| F | Risk Areas & Priorities | Defect-prone areas, business criticality |85| G | Team, Tools & Infrastructure | Team expertise, environments, tools |86| H | Compliance & Standards | WCAG, OWASP, ISO, GDPR, industry |8788**Adaptive behavior:**89- Ask 2-4 questions per category (not all at once — batch by relevance)90- After each answer, decide: go deeper, move to next category, or trigger research loop91- When answer reveals uncertainty: pause, research (read code, docs, URLs), return with informed follow-up9293### Phase 3: Research Loops9495When the interviewee mentions something that requires verification:96971. Read codebase (project structure, API routes, test files, configs)982. Navigate URLs via Playwright MCP (if a live app exists)993. Read documentation files in the project1004. Return with specific, informed follow-up questions101102### Phase 4: Conflict Resolution103104Identify and resolve conflicts in stated requirements:105106- Scope vs timeline conflicts ("we want full coverage in 2 days")107- Priority misalignment (everything is "critical")108- Unrealistic automation expectations109- Missing infrastructure for stated testing types110111See `references/conflict-patterns.md` for common patterns and resolution strategies.112113### Phase 5: Completeness Check114115Before generating the brief, verify all critical areas are covered. See `references/completeness-checklist.md`.116117### Phase 6: QA Brief Generation118119Generate the structured QA Discovery Brief using `templates/qa-brief-template.md`.120121## Output122123**QA Discovery Brief** (markdown) — the primary handoff document. Contains:124- Project/product overview125- Testing scope and objectives126- Critical user flows and scenarios127- Technical constraints and environment128- Risk assessment and priorities129- Compliance requirements130- Recommended testing types and approach131- Team and infrastructure summary132133This brief feeds directly into: `qa-requirements-generator`, `qa-spec-writer`, `qa-plan-creator`, `qa-test-strategy`.134135## MCP Tools Used136137- **Sequential Thinking MCP:** Structured reasoning during deep dive and conflict resolution138- **Playwright MCP:** Research loops — navigate live app to verify answers139- **Filesystem MCP:** Research loops — read codebase, docs, configs140- **Memory MCP:** Persist interview state for multi-session interviews141142## Scope143144**Can do (autonomous):**145- Conduct full discovery interview through all 6 phases146- Adapt question depth based on answers147- Research codebase and live app during interview148- Generate structured QA Discovery Brief149- Serve as embedded service for other skills150151**Cannot do (requires confirmation):**152- Make scope decisions on behalf of stakeholders153- Set final priorities without stakeholder input154- Skip categories the user explicitly wants to discuss155156**Will not do (out of scope):**157- Write test code or create test cases (hand off to downstream skills)158- Modify production systems159- Make business decisions about product direction160161## Quality Checklist162163- [ ] All 8 QA categories addressed (or explicitly marked N/A with rationale)164- [ ] Critical user flows identified and documented165- [ ] Risk areas ranked by business impact166- [ ] Technical stack and constraints captured167- [ ] Testing type recommendations align with project context168- [ ] Compliance requirements identified (or confirmed none apply)169- [ ] No ambiguous or conflicting statements in final brief170- [ ] Brief is sufficient for downstream skills to operate without additional input171172## Troubleshooting173174| Symptom | Likely Cause | Fix |175|---------|--------------|-----|176| Interview feels too long | Too many categories explored in depth | Adapt: skip/abbreviate clear categories, focus on gaps |177| Interviewee gives vague answers | Unclear questions or unfamiliar domain | Rephrase with concrete examples; offer multiple-choice options |178| Conflicting priorities discovered | Stakeholder misalignment | Enter Phase 4: present conflicts explicitly, ask for resolution |179| Research loop finds no codebase | New project, no code yet | Skip code research, focus on specs/mockups/descriptions |180| Embedded trigger too aggressive | Skill triggers interview on minimal input | Check threshold: <3 sentences AND missing critical context (both conditions) |181| Brief too shallow for downstream | Rushed interview or skipped categories | Re-run completeness check, fill gaps with follow-up questions |