version: "1.0.1" 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

中文版： 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.