# Plan Tests

> Use to turn a feature's acceptance criteria into a test plan before any test is written — a table that maps every spec.md §5 acceptance criterion to at least one test, names the test levels (unit / integration / e2e / contract / load) without binding to a language or framework, and fixes the integration and data strategy. Triggers on "plan tests for {slug}", "test plan for {slug}", "how do we test {slug}", "test strategy for {slug}", "/sdd:plan-tests {slug}", "план тестів для {slug}", "як тестувати {slug}", "тест-план". Output: docs/features/{slug}/test-plan.md (separate file for M+), or inline in spec.md for XS/S per the size matrix. Hard-refuse if spec.md is missing → run `specify {slug}` first.

- Skill: `genkovich/plan-tests` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add genkovich/plan-tests`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/genkovich/plan-tests/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Integrations & APIs
- Author: genkovich (https://skillmd.com/u/genkovich)
- Updated: 2026-09-22
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/genkovich/plan-tests

---


# Skill: plan-tests

Turns an already-specified feature into a **test plan**: a table that ties every acceptance criterion in `spec.md §5` to at least one named test, the levels those tests live at (unit / integration / e2e / contract / load), the integration strategy (a real dependency, spun up throwaway), and the test-data + cleanup approach. The plan is written *before* a single test exists — the next stage, `implement`, reads this map and writes the red tests against it, not "however it seems". This file is the spine; the output scaffold lives in `templates/test-plan.md`.

This skill keeps only its own machinery. Question phrasing is **shared** → [`../_shared/ask-style.md`](../_shared/ask-style.md). Depth (inline in the spec vs a separate file) follows the **size matrix** → [`../_shared/size-matrix.md`](../_shared/size-matrix.md). It names test *levels*, never test *tools* — the concrete commands are detected by `implement` against the repo, not hard-coded here.

Plan prose follows `artifact_language` — the `## Test plan` heading (parsed downstream), test names and level tokens stay English → [`../_shared/artifact-language.md`](../_shared/artifact-language.md).

## Owner

QA + the engineer who will implement the feature (co-authors). QA drives the level breakdown and the edge/error cases; the implementing engineer confirms each acceptance criterion has a reachable test and that the integration strategy fits the repo. The Tech Lead signs off that no acceptance criterion is left uncovered.

## Inputs

- `<slug>` — the same feature slug every earlier stage used.
- **Gate (hard-refuse if missing):** `docs/features/<slug>/spec.md`. Its §5 acceptance criteria are the entire reason this plan exists — each one must map to a test. If `spec.md` is absent → STOP and point: «run `specify <slug>` first — the test plan maps its §5 acceptance criteria to tests».
- (Optional) `docs/features/<slug>/data-model.md` — the entity shapes tell you what test data to build and what to seed/clean per suite. Read it if present.
- (Optional) `docs/features/<slug>/sad.md` §6 sequence diagrams — each drawn flow is an e2e candidate; each cross-participant boundary is a contract-test candidate.
- (Optional) `docs/features/<slug>/.size` — depth hint. Absent → default to M (separate `test-plan.md` file) **and say so loudly in the handoff** — «size M (default — no `.size`; run `/sdd:classify-size <slug>`)».

## Protocol

1. **Gate.** `test -f docs/features/<slug>/spec.md` → fail = refuse with the pointer above. Then read §5 (acceptance criteria — the rows of the coverage table) and §6 (NFRs — which drive load tests). Read `data-model.md` / `sad.md` §6 if present.
2. **Pick the output target.** Per the size matrix: **XS/S → write the plan inline in `spec.md`** as a short `## Test plan` section (a coverage table is enough — no separate file); **M+ → a separate `docs/features/<slug>/test-plan.md`** from the template. Confirm the target with one `AskUserQuestion` (phrasing per [`../_shared/ask-style.md`](../_shared/ask-style.md)) when `.size` is absent.
3. **Map levels — generic only.** Name test levels from a fixed vocabulary, never a tool or language: **unit** (pure logic — a rule, a calculation, a validator, no I/O), **integration** (the module against a real dependency it owns — DB, cache, queue), **e2e** (a full flow end to end, one per critical user story), **contract** (a boundary between two participants — an API shape or an event schema agreed by both sides), **load** (only when an NFR carries a number — throughput, p95 latency). **When `sad.md` frontmatter `target_surfaces` declares a UI surface** (`web-frontend` / `mobile-app` / `desktop-app`), add the frontend tiers — **component** (a UI component exercised in isolation), **visual-regression** (web — the rendered UI diffed against a baseline), **e2e-through-UI** (the flow driven through the real UI, not just the API). These are the **"testing trophy"**, the dominant frontend testing vocabulary (web.dev / Kent C. Dodds) — a vocabulary, not a mandate (→ [`../_shared/surfaces.md`](../_shared/surfaces.md)). When the design pipeline ran, source the UI rows from its artifacts: the **e2e-through-UI path comes from `ux-flows.md`** (the flow is the test's script) and the **states a component test must cover come from `screens.md`** (the manifest's state rows). Do not write tool names (no specific test runner, broker, visual-regression, or load tool) — `implement` detects what the repo already uses (e.g. Playwright / Storybook / a visual-diff tool).
4. **Core mapping (the contract of this skill) — user chooses the level per AC.** Build the AC→test table: **every acceptance criterion in §5 maps to ≥1 test.** For each AC, **propose a default level** from a heuristic (pure logic/rule/validator → unit; behaviour against a real dependency the module owns → integration; a full user-story flow → e2e; a cross-participant API/event shape → contract; and — when a UI surface is declared — a UI piece → component, a user-facing flow → e2e-through-UI), then **confirm the level(s) with the user** via one `AskUserQuestion` (multiSelect — an AC may fan out to several levels, e.g. unit for the rule + e2e for the flow), phrased per [`../_shared/ask-style.md`](../_shared/ask-style.md). The user's choice is authoritative and is recorded in the table's Level column; `implement` reads it to write the test at the right level (it does not re-decide). A criterion with zero tests is the cardinal anti-pattern. Name each test descriptively from the criterion's intent (e.g. `over-quota request is rejected`), not from any framework convention.
5. **Edge cases & error paths.** Every error/authorization acceptance criterion gets its own dedicated test row — never folded into the happy path. List the boundary and failure cases the spec implies (missing identifier, malformed input, dependency unavailable → the spec's fallback behaviour) as explicit rows with their expected outcome named in plain words (no status numbers, no error-code strings).
6. **Integration strategy — real, ephemeral dependency.** For integration tests, the default is **an ephemeral real dependency, e.g. a throwaway DB container** spun up for the suite and torn down after (testcontainers-style). Mocking the datastore is an anti-pattern — a passing mock is not a passing production. State the seed strategy (factories/fixtures for the data shape) and the cleanup boundary (per-test vs per-suite); without cleanup the suite goes flaky and blocks CI.
7. **NFR → load.** For each §6 NFR that carries a number, write one concrete load scenario (target rate, duration, the metric and its threshold) and name the tool generically: **the load tool already in your repo, or e.g. k6 or Locust**. If no NFR carries a number, mark the load section `<!-- N/A: no numeric NFR -->` — do not invent a load test.
8. **CI placement.** Note which suites run where: fast suites (unit, contract) on every PR; the heavier ones (e2e, load) on a schedule or pre-release. The split is advice, not a pipeline config — `implement` and the repo's CI own the actual wiring.
9. **Socratic walk + write.** Walk the coverage table and the strategy choices with the 4-state actions from [`../_shared/ask-style.md`](../_shared/ask-style.md) (Accept / Fix / Save-as-OQ / Drop); on Fix, regenerate that one row (one round, second answer final). Maintain the edits-log per [`../_shared/socratic-loop.md`](../_shared/socratic-loop.md). On pass, write the plan to its target (separate file for M+, inline `## Test plan` for XS/S).
10. **Structural self-check** — per [`../_shared/self-check.md`](../_shared/self-check.md): re-read the written plan from disk and verify **6 items**: (1) every `spec.md` §5 AC id appears in the coverage table; (2) every error/authorization AC has its **own dedicated row** (not folded into a happy path); (3) every Level value ∈ the fixed vocabulary {unit, integration, e2e, contract, load, component, visual-regression, e2e-through-UI}; (4) **zero tool names** in the plan (no runner / broker / visual-diff / load-tool name outside the single "e.g. k6 / Locust" allowance); (5) the load section carries numbers (rate + duration + metric + threshold) or the literal `<!-- N/A: no numeric NFR -->`; (6) the plan sits at its size-correct target (inline `## Test plan` for XS/S or route `quick`, separate `test-plan.md` for M+). Fix + re-check ≤2 cycles; surface anything unresolved.
11. **Propose commit + handoff.** `test-plan: <slug>`. Then **emit the stage-handoff block** per [`../_shared/handoff.md`](../_shared/handoff.md) — *What I did* (incl. «self-check: 6/6 pass») + *Review* (`test-plan.md`, or `spec.md` `## Test plan` for XS/S) + *Run next* (`/clear`, then `/sdd:implement <slug>`, which consumes this map to write the red tests).

## Definition of Done

- The plan exists at its size-correct target: a separate `docs/features/<slug>/test-plan.md` for M+, or an inline `## Test plan` section in `spec.md` for XS/S.
- **Every acceptance criterion in spec.md §5 maps to ≥1 named test** — zero uncovered criteria.
- Each error / authorization criterion has its own dedicated test row, not folded into a happy path.
- Test levels are generic (unit / integration / e2e / contract / load; + component / visual-regression / e2e-through-UI when a UI surface is declared in `target_surfaces`) — **no test-runner, broker, visual-regression, or load-tool name is hard-coded** (the load tool is named only as "the one in your repo, or e.g. k6 / Locust"; UI tools are detected by `implement`).
- Integration tests use an ephemeral real dependency (throwaway container), with the seed and cleanup boundary stated; no mocked datastore.
- Every numeric §6 NFR has a load scenario (rate + duration + metric + threshold), or the load section is explicitly `<!-- N/A -->`.

## Anti-patterns

- **An acceptance criterion with no test.** The whole point of the map is that §5 is verifiable; an uncovered criterion means it isn't.
- **Naming a concrete tool or language** — a specific runner, broker, or load tool. The legacy plan hard-coded **k6**; here load is "the tool already in your repo, or e.g. k6 / Locust", and the rest stay generic levels. `implement` detects the real commands.
- **Mocking the datastore.** A passing mock is not a passing production — use a throwaway real dependency for integration.
- **e2e without a cleanup boundary.** Leftover state makes the suite flaky and every flaky run blocks CI.
- **"100 % coverage" as the goal.** The target is critical paths + happy + error paths mapped to acceptance criteria, not a line-count number.
- **A wishlist plan** — "would be nice to add". A test plan is a commitment the next stage executes, not a backlog.
- **Inventing a load test with no numeric NFR.** No number → `<!-- N/A -->`, not a fabricated throughput target.

## References & template

- [`../_shared/ask-style.md`](../_shared/ask-style.md) — canonical question/option phrasing for steps 2 and 9.
- [`../_shared/self-check.md`](../_shared/self-check.md) — the structural self-check contract step 10 runs.
- [`../_shared/size-matrix.md`](../_shared/size-matrix.md) — inline-in-spec (XS/S) vs separate file (M+) depth.
- [`../_shared/surfaces.md`](../_shared/surfaces.md) — a declared UI surface adds the component / visual-regression / e2e-through-UI tiers (testing-trophy vocabulary); read from `sad.md` `target_surfaces`.
- [`./templates/test-plan.md`](./templates/test-plan.md) — output scaffold: AC→test mapping table, generic test levels, ephemeral-dependency integration strategy, stack-agnostic load section. Its `<!-- … -->` comments are the per-section contract.