ln-41-test-strategy-planner
Designs risk-based test portfolio decisions and prioritized scenarios without changing code. Use when requirements need a test strategy; not for auditing or implementing tests.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills /tmp/ln-41-test-strategy-planner && cp -r /tmp/ln-41-test-strategy-planner/plugins/testing-suite/skills/ln-41-test-strategy-planner ~/.claude/skills/ln-41-test-strategy-plannerSKILL.md
# Test Strategy Planner **Goal:** Design a read-only, risk-based test portfolio decision for the requested scope. Maximize confidence in important local behavior while preventing test growth that lacks a unique defect signal, and define how affected evidence is retained, changed, consolidated, retired, or deliberately omitted. **Execution contract:** Treat the ordered checkbox workflow below as this skill's Definition of Done. Track every checkbox as `PENDING`, then resolve it to `PROVEN` with concrete evidence, `CLEARED` with evidence that its conditional trigger is absent, or `UNPROVEN`; reading, mentioning, delegating, skipping, or tool failure is not proof. Before returning, resolve every `PENDING`, count only `PROVEN` and `CLEARED` items as complete, apply this skill's verdict, decision, and approval rules to every `UNPROVEN`, and prepend **Checklist: X/Y complete**<br>**Incomplete: None | section/item — reason; outcome impact; exact next action**; list every `UNPROVEN` item. ## Tool Routing | Need | Preferred tool | Use it when | Fallback | |---|---|---|---| | Requirements and repository rules | Native file reads plus Git | Establishing scope, current work, acceptance criteria, and supported commands | User-provided requirements with explicit limitations | | Existing test surface | File listing, search, manifests, runner configuration, and CI | Mapping test levels, fixtures, environments, and conventions | Repository tree and known test entrypoints | | Behavior and boundaries | Language server or host-native code intelligence | Tracing entrypoints, consumers, trust boundaries, persistence, queues, and external contracts | Narrow search followed by direct inspection | | Existing evidence | Safe repository-defined test and coverage commands | Determining what behavior is already proved and where confidence is weak | Inspect tests and CI; mark execution unavailable | | Current external failure modes | Official documentation, specifications, advisories, and primary field evidence | An external contract or real user failure can change scenarios or priority | Mark the claim `UNVERIFIED`; do not invent risk | Keep the run read-only. Do not create tests, fixtures, snapshots, tasks, or documentation, and do not update the reviewed implementation. ## Evidence Rules - Prefer deterministic end-to-end evidence through the user-observable boundary for material business risks. Choose contract or integration evidence only with a distinct boundary or determinism rationale, and unit evidence only for material isolated local rules when broader proof is less precise or useful. - Coverage is discovery evidence, not proof. Require an oracle that would fail for the named defect. - Prioritize by impact, plausible failure, uniqueness, detectability, and recovery cost; do not convert those judgments into universal numeric thresholds. - Existing tests reduce a gap only when their setup and assertions prove the same behavior and failure mode. - Framework, language, ORM, serializer, or library behavior is not a product test unless local configuration or integration changes its contract. - Keep portfolio action separate from execution status. Use `KEEP`, `ADD`, `UPDATE`, `MERGE`, `DELETE`, or `NO_TEST` for the decision and `PASS`, `FAIL`, `BLOCKED`, or `UNPROVEN` only for evidence state. - `NO_TEST` is an explicit risk decision, not missing work. Name the existing proof, alternative control, or accepted residual risk. - A persistent test register is optional. Prefer repository-native test names, paths, tags, CI configuration, and task output unless scale or governance requires another maintained artifact. - External research is actionable only when it adds a concrete failure mode, boundary, or oracle to this plan. ## Checklist ### 1. Establish Scope and Evidence - [ ] Resolve the feature, requirements, acceptance criteria, actors, explicit non-goals, and protected human or system outcomes; separate the requested mechanism from the result it must enable and return `BLOCKED` if there is no concrete behavior to plan for. - [ ] Read applicable repository instructions and inspect Git state so current work and unrelated changes are not mistaken for established behavior. - [ ] Detect languages, frameworks, runners, test directories, fixtures, factories, environments, CI gates, coverage, contract tests, and manual test surfaces. - [ ] Map existing evidence and every test affected by the requested behavior to each requirement; mark proof `PROVED`, `PARTIAL`, `MISSING`, or `UNAVAILABLE` based on the actual oracle, not test names or proximity. - [ ] Inspect manual, exploratory, incident, and production evidence when it reveals behavior that automated suites do not cover. - [ ] Identify environment, data, credentials, services, devices, browsers, and destructive-state constraints before proposing scenarios. - [ ] Record assumptions and unknowns that can change test level, priority, or feasibility, and ask one concise question only when different interpretations materially change the strategy. ### 2. Build the Risk Map - [ ] Trace critical flows from actor trigger through entrypoint, runtime wiring, state change, and durable or user-visible outcome. - [ ] Identify uniquely important local behavior involving money, authentication, authorization, ownership, data integrity, destructive actions, migrations, public contracts, or irreversible workflows. - [ ] Enumerate plausible defect classes: incorrect success, rejected valid input, accepted invalid input, boundary error, partial failure, duplicate delivery, ordering, timeout, retry, cancellation, race, rollback, recovery, and compatibility drift; state what protected outcome is lost or what concrete harm follows. - [ ] Separate product risks from implementation details and behavior already guaranteed by a dependency; exclude technically representable states that protect no unique local outcome or decision. - [ ] Identify privacy-sensitive or regulated test data an
Creates a project baseline of architecture drivers and constraints. Use before design or planning; not for target design, plan review, implementation, or architecture audit.
Documents implemented current-state architecture from repository evidence. Use for onboarding or migration baselines; not for target design, audit verdicts, or code changes.
Creates a decision-complete target system design from requirements and constraints. Use before implementation planning; not for requirements baselines, reviews, audits, or code changes.
Records one architecture decision with context, alternatives, tradeoffs, and consequences. Use for a significant choice; not for broad design, audit, or implementation.
Creates evidence-backed current or target architecture diagrams when the diagram is the primary deliverable. Not for UI design, architecture audit, or invented structure.
Plans a reversible architecture migration with compatibility, data movement, rollout, and rollback. Use for current-to-target transitions; not execution, generic planning, or delivery review.
Audits documentation and code comments for structure, coverage, factual accuracy, and maintainability. Use for documentation trust reviews; not code, test, or architecture audits.
Audits cross-cutting code health across security, delivery, maintainability, dependencies, diagnosability, concurrency, and lifecycle. Use when no specialist audit is primary.