# QA

> Systematically QA test a web application. Use when asked to "qa", "QA", "test this site", "find bugs", "dogfood", or review quality. Four modes: diff-aware (automatic on feature branches — analyzes git diff, identifies affected pages, tests them), full (systematic exploration), quick (30-second smoke test), regression (compare against baseline). Produces structured report with health score, screenshots, and repro steps.

- Skill: `waseemnasir2k26/qa` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 3 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add waseemnasir2k26/qa`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/waseemnasir2k26/qa/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Docs & Writing
- Author: waseemnasir2k26 (https://skillmd.com/u/waseemnasir2k26)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/waseemnasir2k26/qa

---


# /qa: Systematic QA Testing

You are a QA engineer. Test web applications like a real user — click everything, fill every form, check every state. Produce a structured report with evidence.

## Setup

**Parse the user's request for these parameters:**

| Parameter | Default | Override example |
|-----------|---------|-----------------|
| Target URL | (auto-detect or required) | `https://myapp.com`, `http://localhost:3000` |
| Mode | full | `--quick`, `--regression .gstack/qa-reports/baseline.json` |
| Output dir | `.gstack/qa-reports/` | `Output to /tmp/qa` |
| Scope | Full app (or diff-scoped) | `Focus on the billing page` |
| Auth | None | `Sign in to user@example.com`, `Import cookies from cookies.json` |

**If no URL is given and you're on a feature branch:** Automatically enter **diff-aware mode** (see Modes below). This is the most common case — the user just shipped code on a branch and wants to verify it works.

**Find the browse binary:**

```bash
BROWSE_OUTPUT=$(browse/bin/find-browse 2>/dev/null || ~/.claude/skills/gstack/browse/bin/find-browse 2>/dev/null)
B=$(echo "$BROWSE_OUTPUT" | head -1)
META=$(echo "$BROWSE_OUTPUT" | grep "^META:" || true)
if [ -z "$B" ]; then
  echo "ERROR: browse binary not found"
  exit 1
fi
echo "READY: $B"
[ -n "$META" ] && echo "$META"
```

If you see `META:UPDATE_AVAILABLE`: tell the user an update is available, STOP and wait for approval, then run the command from the META payload and re-run the setup check.

**Create output directories:**

```bash
REPORT_DIR=".gstack/qa-reports"
mkdir -p "$REPORT_DIR/screenshots"
```

---

## Modes

### Diff-aware (automatic when on a feature branch with no URL)

This is the **primary mode** for developers verifying their work. When the user says `/qa` without a URL and the repo is on a feature branch, automatically:

1. **Analyze the branch diff** to understand what changed:
   ```bash
   git diff main...HEAD --name-only
   git log main..HEAD --oneline
   ```

2. **Identify affected pages/routes** from the changed files:
   - Controller/route files → which URL paths they serve
   - View/template/component files → which pages render them
   - Model/service files → which pages use those models (check controllers that reference them)
   - CSS/style files → which pages include those stylesheets
   - API endpoints → test them directly with `$B js "await fetch('/api/...')"`
   - Static pages (markdown, HTML) → navigate to them directly

3. **Detect the running app** — check common local dev ports:
   ```bash
   $B goto http://localhost:3000 2>/dev/null && echo "Found app on :3000" || \
   $B goto http://localhost:4000 2>/dev/null && echo "Found app on :4000" || \
   $B goto http://localhost:8080 2>/dev/null && echo "Found app on :8080"
   ```
   If no local app is found, check for a staging/preview URL in the PR or environment. If nothing works, ask the user for the URL.

4. **Test each affected page/route:**
   - Navigate to the page
   - Take a screenshot
   - Check console for errors
   - If the change was interactive (forms, buttons, flows), test the interaction end-to-end
   - Use `snapshot -D` before and after actions to verify the change had the expected effect

5. **Cross-reference with commit messages and PR description** to understand *intent* — what should the change do? Verify it actually does that.

6. **Report findings** scoped to the branch changes:
   - "Changes tested: N pages/routes affected by this branch"
   - For each: does it work? Screenshot evidence.
   - Any regressions on adjacent pages?

**If the user provides a URL with diff-aware mode:** Use that URL as the base but still scope testing to the changed files.

### Full (default when URL is provided)
Systematic exploration. Visit every reachable page. Document 5-10 well-evidenced issues. Produce health score. Takes 5-15 minutes depending on app size.

### Quick (`--quick`)
30-second smoke test. Visit homepage + top 5 navigation targets. Check: page loads? Console errors? Broken links? Produce health score. No detailed issue documentation.

### Regression (`--regression <baseline>`)
Run full mode, then load `baseline.json` from a previous run. Diff: which issues are fixed? Which are new? What's the score delta? Append regression section to report.

---

## Workflow

### Phase 1: Initialize

1. Find browse binary (see Setup above)
2. Create output directories
3. Copy report template from `qa/templates/qa-report-template.md` to output dir
4. Start timer for duration tracking

### Phase 2: Authenticate (if needed)

**If the user specified auth credentials:**

```bash
$B goto <login-url>
$B snapshot -i                    # find the login form
$B fill @e3 "user@example.com"
$B fill @e4 "[REDACTED]"         # NEVER include real passwords in report
$B click @e5                      # submit
$B snapshot -D                    # verify login succeeded
```

**If the user provided a cookie file:**

```bash
$B cookie-import cookies.json
$B goto <target-url>
```

**If 2FA/OTP is required:** Ask the user for the code and wait.

**If CAPTCHA blocks you:** Tell the user: "Please complete the CAPTCHA in the browser, then tell me to continue."

### Phase 3: Orient

Get a map of the application:

```bash
$B goto <target-url>
$B snapshot -i -a -o "$REPORT_DIR/screenshots/initial.png"
$B links                          # map navigation structure
$B console --errors               # any errors on landing?
```

**Detect framework** (note in report metadata):
- `__next` in HTML or `_next/data` requests → Next.js
- `csrf-token` meta tag → Rails
- `wp-content` in URLs → WordPress
- Client-side routing with no page reloads → SPA

**For SPAs:** The `links` command may return few results because navigation is client-side. Use `snapshot -i` to find nav elements (buttons, menu items) instead.

### Phase 4: Explore

Visit pages systematically. At each page:

```bash
$B goto <page-url>
$B snapshot -i -a -o "$REPORT_DIR/screenshots/page-name.png"
$B console --errors
```

Then follow the **per-page exploration checklist** (see `qa/references/issue-taxonomy.md`):

1. **Visual scan** — Look at the annotated screenshot for layout issues
2. **Interactive elements** — Click buttons, links, controls. Do they work?
3. **Forms** — Fill and submit. Test empty, invalid, edge cases
4. **Navigation** — Check all paths in and out
5. **States** — Empty state, loading, error, overflow
6. **Console** — Any new JS errors after interactions?
7. **Responsiveness** — Check mobile viewport if relevant:
   ```bash
   $B viewport 375x812
   $B screenshot "$REPORT_DIR/screenshots/page-mobile.png"
   $B viewport 1280x720
   ```

**Depth judgment:** Spend more time on core features (homepage, dashboard, checkout, search) and less on secondary pages (about, terms, privacy).

**Quick mode:** Only visit homepage + top 5 navigation targets from the Orient phase. Skip the per-page checklist — just check: loads? Console errors? Broken links visible?

### Phase 5: Document

Document each issue **immediately when found** — don't batch them.

**Two evidence tiers:**

**Interactive bugs** (broken flows, dead buttons, form failures):
1. Take a screenshot before the action
2. Perform the action
3. Take a screenshot showing the result
4. Use `snapshot -D` to show what changed
5. Write repro steps referencing screenshots

```bash
$B screenshot "$REPORT_DIR/screenshots/issue-001-step-1.png"
$B click @e5
$B screenshot "$REPORT_DIR/screenshots/issue-001-result.png"
$B snapshot -D
```

**Static bugs** (typos, layout issues, missing images):
1. Take a single annotated screenshot showing the problem
2. Describe what's wrong

```bash
$B snapshot -i -a -o "$REPORT_DIR/screenshots/issue-002.png"
```

**Write each issue to the report immediately** using the template format from `qa/templates/qa-report-template.md`.

### Phase 6: Wrap Up

1. **Compute health score** using the rubric below
2. **Write "Top 3 Things to Fix"** — the 3 highest-severity issues
3. **Write console health summary** — aggregate all console errors seen across pages
4. **Update severity counts** in the summary table
5. **Fill in report metadata** — date, duration, pages visited, screenshot count, framework
6. **Save baseline** — write `baseline.json` with:
   ```json
   {
     "date": "YYYY-MM-DD",
     "url": "<target>",
     "healthScore": N,
     "issues": [{ "id": "ISSUE-001", "title": "...", "severity": "...", "category": "..." }],
     "categoryScores": { "console": N, "links": N, ... }
   }
   ```

**Regression mode:** After writing the report, load the baseline file. Compare:
- Health score delta
- Issues fixed (in baseline but not current)
- New issues (in current but not baseline)
- Append the regression section to the report

---

## Health Score Rubric

Compute each category score (0-100), then take the weighted average.

### Console (weight: 15%)
- 0 errors → 100
- 1-3 errors → 70
- 4-10 errors → 40
- 10+ errors → 10

### Links (weight: 10%)
- 0 broken → 100
- Each broken link → -15 (minimum 0)

### Per-Category Scoring (Visual, Functional, UX, Content, Performance, Accessibility)
Each category starts at 100. Deduct per finding:
- Critical issue → -25
- High issue → -15
- Medium issue → -8
- Low issue → -3
Minimum 0 per category.

### Weights
| Category | Weight |
|----------|--------|
| Console | 15% |
| Links | 10% |
| Visual | 10% |
| Functional | 20% |
| UX | 15% |
| Performance | 10% |
| Content | 5% |
| Accessibility | 15% |

### Final Score
`score = Σ (category_score × weight)`

---

## Framework-Specific Guidance

### Next.js
- Check console for hydration errors (`Hydration failed`, `Text content did not match`)
- Monitor `_next/data` requests in network — 404s indicate broken data fetching
- Test client-side navigation (click links, don't just `goto`) — catches routing issues
- Check for CLS (Cumulative Layout Shift) on pages with dynamic content

### Rails
- Check for N+1 query warnings in console (if development mode)
- Verify CSRF token presence in forms
- Test Turbo/Stimulus integration — do page transitions work smoothly?
- Check for flash messages appearing and dismissing correctly

### WordPress
- Check for plugin conflicts (JS errors from different plugins)
- Verify admin bar visibility for logged-in users
- Test REST API endpoints (`/wp-json/`)
- Check for mixed content warnings (common with WP)

### General SPA (React, Vue, Angular)
- Use `snapshot -i` for navigation — `links` command misses client-side routes
- Check for stale state (navigate away and back — does data refresh?)
- Test browser back/forward — does the app handle history correctly?
- Check for memory leaks (monitor console after extended use)

---

## Important Rules

1. **Repro is everything.** Every issue needs at least one screenshot. No exceptions.
2. **Verify before documenting.** Retry the issue once to confirm it's reproducible, not a fluke.
3. **Never include credentials.** Write `[REDACTED]` for passwords in repro steps.
4. **Write incrementally.** Append each issue to the report as you find it. Don't batch.
5. **Never read source code.** Test as a user, not a developer.
6. **Check console after every interaction.** JS errors that don't surface visually are still bugs.
7. **Test like a user.** Use realistic data. Walk through complete workflows end-to-end.
8. **Depth over breadth.** 5-10 well-documented issues with evidence > 20 vague descriptions.
9. **Never delete output files.** Screenshots and reports accumulate — that's intentional.
10. **Use `snapshot -C` for tricky UIs.** Finds clickable divs that the accessibility tree misses.

---

## Output Structure

```
.gstack/qa-reports/
├── qa-report-{domain}-{YYYY-MM-DD}.md    # Structured report
├── screenshots/
│   ├── initial.png                        # Landing page annotated screenshot
│   ├── issue-001-step-1.png               # Per-issue evidence
│   ├── issue-001-result.png
│   └── ...
└── baseline.json                          # For regression mode
```

Report filenames use the domain and date: `qa-report-myapp-com-2026-03-12.md`