ln-521-test-researcher
Researches real-world problems, competitor solutions, and customer complaints for a feature domain. Use before test planning to ground tests in actual user pain points.
What this skill does
> **Paths:** File paths (`references/`, `../ln-*`) are relative to this skill directory.
## Inputs
| Input | Required | Source | Description |
|-------|----------|--------|-------------|
| `storyId` | Yes | args, git branch, kanban, user | Story to process |
**Resolution:** Story Resolution Chain.
**Status filter:** To Review
# Test Researcher
**Type:** L3 Worker
Researches real-world problems and edge cases before test planning to ensure tests cover actual user pain points, not just AC.
## Purpose & Scope
- Research common problems for the feature domain using Web Search, MCP Ref, Context7.
- Analyze how competitors solve the same problem.
- Find customer complaints and pain points from forums, StackOverflow, Reddit.
- Post structured findings as a tracker comment (`addComment`) for later test-planning steps.
- No test creation or status changes.
## When to Use
This skill should be used when:
- Use at the start of a test-planning workflow when feature-domain evidence is needed
- Story has non-trivial functionality (external APIs, file formats, authentication)
- Need to discover edge cases beyond AC
**Skip research when:**
- Story is trivial (simple CRUD, no external dependencies)
- Research comment already exists on Story
- User explicitly requests to skip
## Workflow
### Phase 1: Discovery
**MANDATORY READ:** Load `references/input_resolution_pattern.md`
1. **Resolve storyId:** Run Story Resolution Chain per guide (status filter: [To Review]).
2. Auto-discover Team ID from `docs/tasks/kanban_board.md`
### Phase 2: Extract Feature Domain
1) Fetch Story via the configured tracker provider (`getStory`)
2) Parse Story goal and AC to identify:
- What technology/API/format is involved?
- What is the user's goal? (e.g., "translate XLIFF files", "authenticate via OAuth")
3) Extract keywords for research queries
### Phase 3: Research Common Problems
Use available tools to find real-world problems:
1) **Web Search:**
- "[feature] common problems"
- "[format] edge cases"
- "[API] gotchas"
- "[technology] known issues"
2) **MCP Ref:**
- `ref_search_documentation("[feature] error handling best practices")`
- `ref_search_documentation("[format] validation rules")`
3) **Context7:**
- Query relevant library docs for known issues
- Check API documentation for limitations
### Phase 4: Research Competitor Solutions
1) **Web Search:**
- "[competitor] [feature] how it works"
- "[feature] comparison"
- "[product type] best practices"
2) **Analysis:**
- How do market leaders handle this functionality?
- What UX patterns do they use?
- What error handling approaches are common?
### Phase 5: Research Customer Complaints
1) **Web Search:**
- "[feature] complaints"
- "[product type] user problems"
- "[format] issues reddit"
- "[format] issues stackoverflow"
2) **Analysis:**
- What do users actually struggle with?
- What are common frustrations?
- What gaps exist between user expectations and typical implementations?
### Phase 6: Compile and Post Findings
1) **Compile findings** into categories:
- **Input validation issues** (malformed data, encoding, size limits)
- **Edge cases** (empty input, special characters, Unicode)
- **Error handling** (timeouts, rate limits, partial failures)
- **Security concerns** (injection, authentication bypass)
- **Competitor advantages** (features we should match or exceed)
- **Customer pain points** (problems users actually complain about)
2) **Post tracker comment** (`addComment`) on Story with research summary:
```markdown
## Test Research: {Feature}
### Sources Consulted
- [Source 1](url)
- [Source 2](url)
### Common Problems Found
1. **Problem 1:** Description + test case suggestion
2. **Problem 2:** Description + test case suggestion
### Competitor Analysis
- **Competitor A:** How they handle this + what we can learn
- **Competitor B:** Their approach + gaps we can exploit
### Customer Pain Points
- **Complaint 1:** What users struggle with + test to prevent
- **Complaint 2:** Common frustration + how to verify we solve it
### Recommended Test Coverage
- [ ] Test case for problem 1
- [ ] Test case for competitor parity
- [ ] Test case for customer pain point
---
_This research informs both manual tests (ln-522) and automated tests (ln-523)._
```
## Critical Rules
- **No test creation:** Only research and documentation.
- **No status changes:** Only tracker comment.
- **Source attribution:** Always include URLs for sources consulted.
- **Actionable findings:** Each problem should suggest a test case.
- **Skip trivial Stories:** Don't research "Add button to page".
## Runtime Summary Artifact
**MANDATORY READ:** Load `references/test_planning_summary_contract.md`, `references/test_planning_worker_runtime_contract.md`
Runtime profile:
- family: `test-planning-worker`
- worker: `ln-521`
- summary kind: `test-planning-worker`
- payload fields used by coordinators: `worker`, `status`, `warnings`, `research_comment_path`
Invocation rules:
- standalone: omit `runId` and `summaryArtifactPath`
- managed: pass both `runId` and exact `summaryArtifactPath`
- always write the validated summary before terminal outcome
## Definition of Done
- [ ] Feature domain extracted from Story (technology/API/format identified)
- [ ] Common problems researched (Web Search + MCP Ref + Context7)
- [ ] Competitor solutions analyzed (at least 1-2 competitors)
- [ ] Customer complaints found (forums, StackOverflow, Reddit)
- [ ] Findings compiled into categories
- [ ] Tracker comment posted with "## Test Research: {Feature}" header
- [ ] At least 3 recommended test cases suggested
**Output:** Tracker comment with research findings for ln-522 and ln-523 to use.
## Reference Files
- Research methodology: Web Search, MCP Ref, Context7 tools
- Comment format: Structured markdown with sources
- Downstream consumers: ln-522-manual-tester, ln-523-auto-test-planner
- **MANDATORY READ:** Load `references/research_tool_fallback.md`
---
**Version:** 1.0.0
**Last Updated:** 2026-01-15
Related in Code Review
gstack
IncludedFast headless browser for QA testing and site dogfooding. Navigate pages, interact with elements, verify state, diff before/after, take annotated screenshots, test responsive layouts, forms, uploads, dialogs, and capture bug evidence. Use when asked to open or test a site, verify a deployment, dogfood a user flow, or file a bug with screenshots. (gstack)
startup-due-diligence
IncludedLegal due diligence review for seed-stage and Series A startups (US, Delaware C-Corp focus). Supports both investor and founder perspectives. Capabilities include: (1) Interactive document review and issue spotting; (2) Document request list generation; (3) Cap table and SAFE/convertible note analysis; (4) Red flag identification with severity ratings; (5) Diligence report generation. TRIGGERS: due diligence, DD, startup investment, cap table review, Series A, seed round, investor diligence, legal review startup, SAFE analysis, convertible note, 409A, founder vesting.
interview-master
IncludedThis skill should be used when the user asks to "generate interview questions", "prepare for interview", "optimize resume", "conduct mock interview", "analyze git commits for resume", "generate resume from code", "review my resume", or mentions interview preparation, career assistance, or extracting project experience from git history. Provides comprehensive interview and career development guidance for both job seekers and interviewers.
fix-issue
IncludedFixes GitHub issues using parallel analysis agents for root cause investigation, code exploration, and regression detection. Reads issue context from gh CLI, searches codebase and memory for related patterns, generates a fix with tests, and links the resolution back to the issue via PR. Includes prevention analysis to avoid recurrence. Use when debugging errors, resolving regressions, fixing bugs, or triaging issues.
sf-apex
IncludedGenerates and reviews Salesforce Apex code with 150-point scoring. TRIGGER when: user writes, reviews, or fixes Apex classes, triggers, test classes, batch/queueable/schedulable jobs, or touches .cls/.trigger files. DO NOT TRIGGER when: LWC JavaScript (use sf-lwc), Flow XML (use sf-flow), SOQL-only queries (use sf-soql), or non-Salesforce code.
swift-development
IncludedComprehensive Swift development for building, testing, and deploying iOS/macOS applications. Use when Claude needs to: (1) Build Swift packages or Xcode projects from command line, (2) Run tests with XCTest or Swift Testing framework, (3) Manage iOS simulators with simctl, (4) Handle code signing, provisioning profiles, and app distribution, (5) Format or lint Swift code with SwiftFormat/SwiftLint, (6) Work with Swift Package Manager (SPM), (7) Implement Swift 6 concurrency patterns (async/await, actors, Sendable), (8) Create SwiftUI views with MVVM architecture, (9) Set up Core Data or SwiftData persistence, or any other Swift/iOS/macOS development tasks.