test-case-reviewer git:20260903.6713296A

Immutable. This exact content is served forever at /api/v1/blob/cf05a608d9a36067.

---
name: test-case-reviewer
description: Use this skill when you need to review test cases for completeness, clarity, maintainability, and missing scenarios; triggers include test case review and test case QA.
---

# Test Case Review

**Chinese version：** See the corresponding Chinese skill.

## When to Use

- Need help with test case reviewer in a real project context.
- Need an output that can be used directly for execution, review, or follow-up.

## Workflow

1. Read and follow the main prompt listed under Progressive disclosure (coverage, structure, quality bar).
2. Add only project context that changes the result: scope, environment, constraints, risks, dependencies, expected deliverable.
3. If input is incomplete, return a usable first draft and explicitly mark assumptions and gaps.
4. Default to Markdown; switch formats only when the user asks.

## Core Constraints

- Prioritize by risk / business impact — do not treat everything equally.
- Separate confirmed facts from current assumptions.
- Do not invent endpoints, fields, environments, or root causes the user did not provide.
- Keep output executable: concrete scenarios, clear priority, clear next steps.

## Progressive Disclosure

- Before producing output, read and follow `prompts/test-case-reviewer.md` (minimum coverage, output structure, quality bar).
- When Excel/CSV/JSON/Word is requested: read `output-formats.md` and honor the format.
- When a ready-made template fits: use matching files under `output-templates/`.
- For format conversion or helper checks: prefer existing `scripts/` over reinventing.
- For evaluating/regressing this skill: use `evals/` with skill-up.

## Pre-delivery Checklist

- [ ] Followed the main prompt's output structure
- [ ] Minimum coverage focus: coverage gaps, missing positive scenarios, missing negative scenarios, missing boundary scenarios, traceability to requirements, step clarity, expected result quality, data quality, ... (details in main prompt)
- [ ] Covered the minimum checklist, or explained omissions
- [ ] High-risk items have explicit priority
- [ ] Did not invent details the user did not provide
- [ ] Assumptions and gaps are marked

## Common Pitfalls

- Do not pretend completeness when scope/context is missing.
- Do not treat every item as equally important.
- Do not skip assumptions and information gaps.
- Do not dump generic theory unrelated to the current toolchain.