← ClaudeAtlas

test-plan-generatorlisted

Generates a structured, concrete test plan (test cases) for a specific feature, change, user story, requirements document, API contract, or code diff — the generative counterpart to this repo's audit skills. Given real source material (acceptance criteria, a user story, a requirements doc, an API/schema contract, or the actual code diff/implementation), it produces a document with prioritized (P0/P1/P2) test cases covering happy-path, negative, boundary/edge, and state-transition scenarios, plus assumptions, scope, test data needs, non-functional flags, and requirement-to-test-case traceability. It does NOT produce an audit findings table and does NOT review a project's overall test strategy/infrastructure — that is `test-strategy-audit`'s job; this skill is scoped to one feature/change, not the whole project. Use this whenever the user asks to "generate a test plan", "write test cases", "create test cases for this feature", "write a test plan for X", "test case generator", "QA test plan", "acceptance test pl
finnley07/AI-SKILLHUB · ★ 0 · Testing & QA · score 72
Install: claude install-skill finnley07/AI-SKILLHUB
# Test Plan Generator A generative skill: given a specific feature, change, user story, requirements document, API contract, or code diff, it produces a concrete, prioritized test plan document — not a findings table. Every other skill in this repo audits something that already exists and reports ✅/❌/⚠️/➖ rows; this skill instead writes new test cases that don't exist yet, so its output is a document deliverable (defined below), not a status table. **This skill is not `test-strategy-audit`.** `test-strategy-audit` asks whether a *project's* overall testing setup (pyramid balance, coverage tooling, CI gating, flakiness) is sound — it never produces concrete test cases for one feature. This skill is the opposite scope: one feature or change, concrete test cases, no opinion on the project's test infrastructure as a whole. If the user wants both, run them separately. ## Ground rules - **Ground every test case in real source material.** Use the actual acceptance criteria, user story, requirements doc, API contract/schema, or code diff/implementation being tested. Never invent generic filler cases like "test the happy path" or "test error handling" — every case must be concrete to the actual feature: specific inputs, specific expected outputs or state changes. If you don't have enough source material to make a case concrete, that's a gap to surface (see next rule), not a reason to write a vague one anyway. - **Don't silently guess at ambiguous or incomplete requiremen