Verified:GitHub

QA

Verify executed command outcomes against linked acceptance criteria.

2|Updated Apr 26, 2026

Search Tags:#qa #acceptance criteria #traceability #artifact validation #test evidence #software workflow #regression risk

Ready to run

npx skills add https://github.com/anderson-joyle/claude-a-team --skill qa-anderson-joyle

💬 Prompt for ChatGPT / Claude Chat▼

Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: QA
Source: https://github.com/anderson-joyle/claude-a-team/tree/main/skills/qa
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/anderson-joyle/claude-a-team --skill qa-anderson-joyle

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

It prevents unverified changes from moving forward by checking real execution evidence against the acceptance criteria defined earlier in the workflow.

Core Features & Use Cases

Evidence-based validation: Compares actual command outcomes and observed results to linked test scenarios and acceptance criteria.
Criteria mapping: Links pass/fail judgments back to acceptance criteria IDs for traceability and auditability.
Risk-aware outcomes: Flags regression risks and coverage gaps using only the provided artifacts and evidence.
Safety guardrails: Refuses to fabricate execution results or approve criteria that were not actually tested.

Quick Start

Run the QA step after you have execution results and artifacts from Engineer and ask the workflow to verify acceptance criteria using the provided evidence.

Frequently Asked Questions about QA

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema

How do I validate execution results against acceptance criteria?▼

To validate execution results against acceptance criteria, you compare actual command outcomes and observed results to linked test scenarios. This evidence-based validation checks real execution artifacts to ensure software changes meet defined requirements before moving forward.

What is evidence-based validation in software workflows?▼

Evidence-based validation in software workflows is the process of verifying executed commands and observed outcomes against linked acceptance criteria. It requires actual execution results and artifacts to prevent unverified changes from progressing, ensuring traceability and auditability.

How do I map pass/fail judgments to acceptance criteria IDs?▼

You map pass/fail judgments to acceptance criteria IDs by linking validation outcomes directly to the original criteria defined earlier in the workflow. This ensures traceability and auditability when verifying executed command outcomes against test scenarios.

Can I use execution artifacts to flag regression risks?▼

Yes, you can use execution artifacts to flag regression risks and coverage gaps. The validation process assesses provided artifacts and evidence to identify potential regressions, ensuring only verified changes move forward without fabricating execution results.

What happens if acceptance criteria were not actually tested?▼

If acceptance criteria were not actually tested, the validation process refuses to approve them. Safety guardrails prohibit fabricating execution results or approving criteria that lack evidence-backed pass/fail/inconclusive judgments from real command outcomes.

What artifacts do I need before running QA validation?▼

Before running QA validation, you need PM context, Architect/Security context, Review decisions, Engineer execution handoff, and actual execution results. These artifacts provide the acceptance criteria and evidence required to verify software changes.