gabrielmoreira QA Release Sign-off Skill
A release sign-off turns "QA says it's fine" into an evidence-based decision: here's what we tested, here's what passed and what's still open, here's the risk, and here's the recommendation. This skill produces that report so the go/no-go is accountable — and so anyone reading it later knows exactly what shipped and what didn't.
Working from a brief
Given test results and a list of open bugs, produce the sign-off anyway — organise the evidence, weigh the open defects, and make a clear recommendation with conditions, marking anything unverified (confirm). Never invent test results or pass rates; if coverage is thin, say so as a risk.
Required Inputs
Ask for these only if they aren't already provided (else mark unknown / as a risk):
- The release — what's shipping (version/scope) and the target date.
- Testing done — what was tested (areas, types), results/pass rate, and what wasn't covered.
- Open defects — known bugs with severity, and any with workarounds.
- Risk & ops — known risks, rollback/feature-flag availability, and any acceptance criteria/exit gates.
Output Format
QA Sign-off: [release] — [date]
- Recommendation — Go / Go with conditions / No-go, in one line, up front, with the headline reason.
- Scope — what's in this release.
- Testing summary — what was tested (areas + test types), results (pass/fail, pass rate), and what was not tested.
- Open defects — a table by severity, with impact and any workaround:
| ID | Severity | Area | Impact | Workaround | Blocker? |
|---|
- Coverage & residual risk — what's well-covered vs. thin, and the honest risk of shipping now.
- Conditions to ship (if "go with conditions") — what must be true/fixed/monitored before or right after release.
- Rollback / mitigation — how to undo or contain it (rollback, feature flag, hotfix path) if something goes wrong.
- Sign-off — who's recommending, and what they're attesting to.
Quality Checks
- The go/no-go recommendation is explicit and up front, with the reason
- Both what was tested and what wasn't are stated — no false sense of coverage
- Open defects are listed by severity with impact and blocker status
- Residual risk is stated honestly, not buried
- "Go with conditions" lists concrete, checkable conditions
- A rollback/mitigation path is included; no results are invented
Anti-Patterns
- Do not give a thumbs-up with no evidence — sign-off is a record, not a vibe
- Do not hide untested areas or thin coverage — that's the risk the reader needs
- Do not conflate severity and priority, or omit blocker status on open bugs
- Do not recommend "go" while ignoring a known critical defect without naming the risk/decision
- Do not ship without a rollback/mitigation note for when it goes wrong
Based On
Release-management & QA practice — evidence-based go/no-go sign-offs with coverage transparency, defect triage, residual-risk disclosure, and rollback planning.