Flow Next QA

/flow-next:qa — live-app real-user QA pass

flow-next's review surface today is all static: impl-review, spec-completion-review, quality-auditor, code-review. Nothing drives the running app like an unforgiving real user. /flow-next:qa fills that gap — it drives the deployed app (via fn-51 flow-next-drive), files structured P0/P1/P2 findings with evidence, and ends with a YES/NO ship verdict emitted as a proof-of-work receipt.

Augments, never replaces. QA is the cheap first live pass — the app already runs on the dev's machine during work, so run an initial agentic pass over the complete build before a human opens the PR. Like everything in flow-next it reduces human work agentically and surfaces problems to humans; it does not stand in for CI/staging QA or manual QA, which still happen downstream. Findings are advisory: they ride the draft PR + the bug-memory track, and the human reviewer + the land gate decide.

Two entry points, one skill. Run it user-invoked (you remember to), or wire it into the autonomous build loop as the optional pipeline.qa pilot stage (default off; flowctl config set pipeline.qa on). When on, /flow-next:pilot inserts a qa stage at the all-tasks-done juncture — one live pass over the complete build, just before make-pr (plan → plan-review → work → qa → make-pr). The stage is evidence-aware (it leans on what work already verified) and autonomy-safe (SHIP/NA/BLOCKED advance; NEEDS_WORK still advances to the draft PR and surfaces its findings — QA never hard-blocks the loop). See docs/ralph.md and flowctl.md (pipeline.qa config row).

Prerequisite - /flow-next:prime gates the recommendation. Prime's QA-readiness line is the upstream signal for turning pipeline.qa on: it recommends enabling this stage ONLY when the repo reaches operability tier 3 AND the DR-core prerequisites pass (seeded data, documented dev login, a drivable surface, readable runtime evidence). If prime reports "QA stage would fail here" or "not applicable to this shape", the app cannot be driven yet - fix the named prerequisites (or leave the stage off) rather than wiring in a stage that BLOCKs every run.

The differentiator vs spec-less QA tools is the spec is the source of intent: flow-next derives test scenarios directly from the spec — acceptance criteria → scenarios, R-IDs → coverage, boundaries → what NOT to test, decision context → expected behavior. The host already encodes intent instead of reconstructing it. The QA discipline (P0/P1/P2 taxonomy, evidence rules, session hygiene) is a lean borrow from Ray Fernando's running-bug-review-board skill (Apache-2.0 — credited in CHANGELOG); flow-next stays lean (no 18-reference port, ≤500-line skill cap).

Read workflow.md for the full phase-by-phase execution (discover → derive → prepare → execute → file → verdict).

The hard rule — PASS is forbidden from source inspection

A SHIP verdict rests on captured evidence from the running app — screenshots, console dumps, observed state. A SHIP reached by reading source or the diff has broken this. So has one resting on agent narration, on "the code looks correct", or on inferring behavior from the diff. A live-app QA pass is the gap that all other flow-next review already covers statically; if no live app is reachable (no deploy or no driver), the outcome is BLOCKED (could not verify), never PASS. This rule is load-bearing — it is what makes the skill a real-user QA pass rather than a second static review.

Preamble

CRITICAL: flowctl is BUNDLED — NOT installed globally. which flowctl will fail (expected). Define once; subsequent blocks (here and in workflow.md) use $FLOWCTL. Subagents that run in fresh context fall back to the repo-local copy:

FLOWCTL="${CODEX_HOME:-$HOME/.codex}/scripts/flowctl"
[ -x "$FLOWCTL" ] || FLOWCTL="<plugin-root>/scripts/flowctl"   # <plugin-root> = the directory two levels above this skill's SKILL.md file (the harness gave you that file's absolute path when the skill loaded); substitute it literally
[ -x "$FLOWCTL" ] || FLOWCTL=".flow/bin/flowctl"

Ask the user via plain text. Render the options below as a numbered list 1. … N., followed by a final option N+1. Other — type your own answer. Print the question, then the numbered list, then stop and wait for the user's next message before continuing. Parse the reply as: a bare number 1–N+1 → that option; the literal text of an option label → that option; free text after Other → custom answer.

Inline skill (no context: fork) — runs on the host agent, not a forked subagent, because the prepare phase must ask the user for undocumented facts (target URL / test account — info-only, never a confirm gate) and a forked subagent cannot ask the user back (Claude Code issues #12890, #34592). The host asks via plain-text numbered prompt.

Mode Detection

Parse $ARGUMENTS. The first non-flag token is the spec id (required). The value-taking caller overrides the downstream phases honor — --target <url> (Phase 3.1), --receipt <path> (Phase 6.3), and --base <ref> (§1.2 base-branch override) — must consume their operand here (both --flag value and --flag=value forms, mirroring make-pr's --base), or the operand falls through to the *) arm and is mis-assigned as SPEC_ID (Phase 1 then rejects the URL/path as "Not a spec"). They populate QA_TARGET_URL / QA_RECEIPT_OVERRIDE / QA_BASE_REF — the exact variables Phases 3.1 / 6.3 / §1.2 read. Other flags (viewport, autonomy) are reserved for later tasks; the skeleton shifts them harmlessly.

RAW_ARGS="$ARGUMENTS"
SPEC_ID=""

# The loop handles both `--flag=value` and space-separated `--flag value`
# forms via a PREV token holder. No bash positional parameters here — the
# host's argument interpolation rewrites positional tokens inside skill code
# blocks (pilot dogfood finding, 1.13.0).
PREV=""
for ARG in $RAW_ARGS; do
  case "$PREV" in
    --target)  QA_TARGET_URL="$ARG"; PREV=""; continue ;;        # Phase 3.1 caller override
    --receipt) QA_RECEIPT_OVERRIDE="$ARG"; PREV=""; continue ;;  # Phase 6.3 receipt path
    --base)    QA_BASE_REF="$ARG"; PREV=""; continue ;;          # §1.2 base-branch override
  esac
  case "$ARG" in
    --target|--receipt|--base) PREV="$ARG" ;;
    --target=*)  QA_TARGET_URL="${ARG#--target=}" ;;        # Phase 3.1 caller override
    --receipt=*) QA_RECEIPT_OVERRIDE="${ARG#--receipt=}" ;; # Phase 6.3 receipt path
    --base=*)    QA_BASE_REF="${ARG#--base=}" ;;            # §1.2 base-branch override
    mode:autonomous) QA_AUTONOMOUS=1 ;;                     # strip the literal token (see "Autonomous mode" below)
    -*) echo "Unknown flag: $ARG (reserved for a later task)" >&2 ;;
    *)  [[ -z "$SPEC_ID" ]] && SPEC_ID="$ARG" ;;
  esac
done
[[ -n "$PREV" ]] && echo "Flag $PREV given without a value (ignored)" >&2
# Secondary autonomy signal: the FLOW_AUTONOMOUS=1 env var (process-level drivers
# like the pilot stage). Either signal flips QA_AUTONOMOUS on.
[[ "${FLOW_AUTONOMOUS:-}" == "1" ]] && QA_AUTONOMOUS=1
export QA_TARGET_URL QA_RECEIPT_OVERRIDE QA_BASE_REF QA_AUTONOMOUS   # carry the resolved overrides + autonomy into workflow.md (Phases 3.1 / 6.3 / §1.2 + the preamble)

When SPEC_ID is empty, the discover phase resolves it (branch-match, or by asking the user via plain-text numbered prompt as an info prompt) — never silently default.

Autonomous mode (mode:autonomous / FLOW_AUTONOMOUS)

QA_AUTONOMOUS=1 (set above from the literal mode:autonomous token — stripped, same shape as plan's autonomous branch — or the FLOW_AUTONOMOUS=1 env var) means the run asks nothing. This is the signal the pilot QA stage passes so the build loop can't hang on an plain-text numbered prompt. The workflow honors it at the preamble, before any prompt path (workflow.md "Autonomous-mode gate") — not in the post-verdict preflight, because the early phases (1.1 spec id, 1.2 base, 3.1 target, 3.2 accounts) all prompt.

Under QA_AUTONOMOUS=1:

• The run asks nothing. Every plain-text numbered prompt info-prompt path becomes a deterministic branch: resolve from spec / config / env, else surface a limitation. A prompt anywhere on this path has broken it.
• Undocumented target URL / required accounts / no reachable local app / undetermined spec id ⇒ emit a BLOCKED qa_verdict + clean exit (the §6.3 writer), never an interactive prompt and never a hang.
• Autonomy ≠ Ralph. Neither mode:autonomous nor FLOW_AUTONOMOUS activates ralph-guard hooks or any receipt-path gate — they gate question suppression only. Ralph (FLOW_RALPH=1 / REVIEW_RECEIPT_PATH) is the separate, additive signal detected in Phase A; the two compose (a pilot run may be autonomous-but-not-Ralph).

Ralph mode (FLOW_RALPH=1 or REVIEW_RECEIPT_PATH set) is detected in workflow.md §AUTONOMY — the skill is aware but not Ralph-blocked (R11). Ralph independently suppresses prompts too (Phase A), so a Ralph run is implicitly autonomous; QA_AUTONOMOUS covers the non-Ralph autonomous caller (the pilot stage).

fn-51 consumption — a read-and-drive contract, not a callable API

A skill is not a function. The host agent reads fn-51's workflow + references and executes the universal driving flow itself — observe → snapshot fresh refs → act → verify → capture. A transcript that "calls" flow-next-drive as if it were an API has broken this. fn-51 owns the driver ladder and all actuation prose; QA owns scenario authoring, evidence capture, and the verdict. CDP / agent-browser / Computer-Use prose stays in fn-51's references — a copy of it in this skill has broken this too. Point at them:

• Surface detection + universal flow + the web/native ladder: plugins/flow-next/skills/flow-next-drive/SKILL.md
• Driver command detail (per rung): plugins/flow-next/skills/flow-next-drive/references/ (agent-browser.md, chrome-devtools-mcp.md, playwright.md, computer-use.md, …)

Per scenario, record an evidence tuple: {driver_rung, target_url, viewport, screenshot_path, console_path}. fn-51's SKILL.md (:83) explicitly defers the QA workflow — scenario authoring, bug filing, verdict — downstream to this skill; the seam is designed, QA orchestrates and fn-51 actuates.

Forbidden

• Marking PASS / SHIP from source inspection. See "The hard rule" above. PASS requires captured live-app evidence; no live app → BLOCKED, never PASS.
• Re-implementing driving. QA consumes fn-51 via the read-and-drive contract; it never reimplements CDP / agent-browser / Computer Use, and never duplicates fn-51's ladder prose.
• Inventing findings or evidence. Every finding cites real captured evidence (screenshot / console / URL). No "I think this might be broken" without a reproduction.
• Ralph-blocking the skill. QA is aware of Ralph but is not a hard Ralph-block (R11). A FLOW_RALPH/REVIEW_RECEIPT_PATH exit-2 guard at the top of the skill has broken this.

Workflow

Execute the phases in workflow.md in order:

1. discover — resolve the spec id (arg / branch-match / info prompt); pull the cognitive-aid payload.
2. derive — AC → scenarios, R-IDs → coverage spine, boundaries → exclusions, decision context → expected behavior.
3. prepare — target URL, test accounts, session hygiene, device matrix.
4. execute — drive the live app via the fn-51 read-and-drive contract; capture the evidence tuple per scenario.
5. file — structured P0/P1/P2 findings with evidence; feed the bug memory track.
6. verdict — YES/NO ship verdict + open P0/P1 list; emit the qa_verdict receipt.