test-evidence-review

Audit test files and manual evidence for coverage gaps and verification completeness.

Updated Jul 16, 2026

Search Tags:#acceptance criteria #test quality #test audit #evidence review #qa sign-off #assertion coverage #story verification

Ready to run

npx skills add https://github.com/johnatas-henrique/overdrive --skill test-evidence-review-johnatas-henrique

💬 Prompt for ChatGPT / Claude Chat▼

Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: test-evidence-review
Source: https://github.com/johnatas-henrique/overdrive/tree/main/.opencode/skills/test-evidence-review
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/johnatas-henrique/overdrive --skill test-evidence-review-johnatas-henrique

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

Standard smoke checks only verify that test files exist and pass, but leave critical gaps in assertion coverage, edge case handling, and manual evidence completeness undetected, leading to undiscovered bugs and blocked QA sign-offs.

Core Features & Use Cases

This skill performs deep quality reviews of both automated test files and manual evidence documents for Logic, Integration, Visual/Feel, and UI story types. It evaluates assertion density, edge case coverage, test naming conventions, formula traceability for automated tests, and criterion linkage, sign-off completeness, and artefact freshness for manual evidence. It produces per-story ADEQUATE/INCOMPLETE/MISSING verdicts to catch gaps before release. For example, a team preparing for sprint review can run it on all current sprint stories to identify thin test suites or missing QA lead sign-offs that would block story closure.

Quick Start

Use the test-evidence-review skill to audit all test quality and evidence completeness for the current sprint's stories.

Frequently Asked Questions about test-evidence-review

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

FAQPage Schema

How do I audit test quality and assertion coverage before QA sign-off?▼

To audit test quality before QA sign-off, you need to evaluate assertion density, edge case handling, and verification completeness. This process identifies gaps in automated test files and manual evidence documents to generate per-story ADEQUATE, INCOMPLETE, or MISSING verdicts.

What is story verification and how does it check acceptance criteria?▼

Story verification checks whether all acceptance criteria are fully tested by evaluating assertion coverage and evidence completeness. It audits automated test files and manual evidence documents for Logic, Integration, Visual/Feel, and UI story types to ensure no criteria are left unverified.

How do I review manual evidence completeness for a sprint release?▼

To review manual evidence completeness for a sprint, you evaluate documents for criterion linkage, sign-off completeness, and artefact freshness. This catches missing QA lead sign-offs or outdated evidence that would block story closure during the sprint review.

Can I perform a test audit across an entire game system or full sprint?▼

Yes, you can perform a test audit across an entire game system or full sprint. The review scope supports individual stories, full sprints, or entire game systems to identify thin test suites and ensure all acceptance criteria are verified.

Why does my standard smoke check pass but QA sign-off is still blocked?▼

Standard smoke checks only verify that test files exist and pass, leaving critical gaps in assertion coverage and edge case handling undetected. Deep test evidence review catches these missing criteria verifications and incomplete manual sign-offs that block QA sign-off.

What are the limitations of checking only test file existence for test evidence review?▼

Checking only test file existence ignores formula traceability, test naming conventions, and manual evidence freshness. Without auditing assertion density and criterion linkage, thin test suites and missing edge case handling will go undetected, leading to undiscovered bugs.