CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

testland/decision-table-test-design

Derives human-readable manual test cases from a business-rule spec via a decision table: identify conditions and actions, build the full 2^n-column matrix, collapse columns with irrelevant entries, strike infeasible combinations, then emit one test case per remaining column (each feasible column is one coverage item per ISTQB CTFL v4.0 section 4.2.3). A deep single-technique walkthrough rather than a broad multi-lens case matrix; the output is manual step/expected cases rather than parameterized test code, and it covers how cases are derived rather than how a case record is structured. Use when a spec's outcome depends on interacting conditions (pricing, eligibility, discounts, routing rules) rather than the boundaries of a single input.

93

1.02x
Quality

93%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

94%

1.02x

Average score across 10 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Overview
Quality
Evals
Security
Files

Evaluation results

97%

13%

Baggage fee rules have been edited by four people and nobody has read the result

Criteria
Baseline
With context

Deliverable exists

100%

100%

The conflicting sentence identified rather than applied

66%

93%

The genuinely redundant sentence identified

100%

94%

All sixteen combinations carry a fee

100%

100%

Reduction count stated with reasoning

50%

100%

MUST NOT check only the passengers who pay

100%

100%

Payment channel scoped correctly

100%

100%

100%

Billing and the network team read the data policy differently

Criteria
Baseline
With context

Deliverable exists

100%

100%

The four contradictory combinations marked unresolved

100%

100%

All sixteen combinations accounted for

100%

100%

Charge and speed kept as two results

100%

100%

MUST NOT merge combinations whose speed results differ

100%

100%

Below-threshold irrelevance stated with its scope

100%

100%

Unlimited domestic under-threshold case present

100%

100%

Test customers map to combinations

100%

100%

100%

3%

Claims keep landing in the wrong queue and the ops note does not settle it

Criteria
Baseline
With context

Deliverable exists

100%

100%

All sixteen states accounted for

96%

100%

Exactly the four unreachable states identified

100%

100%

MUST NOT delete the impossible states without a check that the constraint holds

100%

100%

The over-EUR-1,000 under-six-months conflict raised

100%

100%

Photo input marked as not affecting adjuster handling

100%

100%

Held-for-photo treated as its own result

100%

100%

One case per reachable state, not per statement

83%

100%

100%

9%

Failed-payment runbook: I cannot tell what the system should do on a single decline

Criteria
Baseline
With context

Deliverable exists

100%

100%

MUST NOT list sequence positions as single-event facts

100%

100%

The single-event table is built on exactly three facts

100%

100%

The sequence rules carried forward, not dropped

100%

100%

Expired card versus backup card conflict raised

100%

100%

Plan marked irrelevant where nothing further happens

100%

100%

Actions listed distinctly

0%

100%

Proposed failures map to combinations

100%

100%

79%

-5%

Freight quotes and invoices disagree on tail-lift jobs

Criteria
Baseline
With context

Deliverable exists

100%

100%

All sixteen shipment shapes carry a total

93%

93%

MUST NOT merge shapes whose totals differ

100%

100%

Island residential tail-lift ambiguity raised

22%

0%

The legitimate merge is found and stated

100%

100%

Each surcharge amount is its own result

100%

100%

Comparison list covers the zero-surcharge shape

100%

100%

83%

-17%

Lab door policy: the reader firmware needs a test list and the policy is prose

Criteria
Baseline
With context

Deliverable exists

100%

100%

MUST NOT list compound facts as inputs

100%

100%

All sixteen situations accounted for

100%

100%

The escorted out-of-hours cleared contractor is raised

100%

0%

Refusal is a result in its own right

100%

100%

Escort not marked as irrelevant where it changes the log

100%

100%

Core hours identified as irrelevant for permanent employees

100%

100%

Badge-in attempts tie back to situations

100%

100%

96%

2%

Nobody can tell me what a cardholder with a promo code actually pays

Criteria
Baseline
With context

Deliverable exists

100%

100%

All eight settings enumerated

100%

100%

Card-plus-code conflict raised, not resolved

100%

100%

Unstated default is present and labelled

50%

66%

Shipping and discount kept as separate results

100%

100%

Order total marked as not affecting the discount

100%

100%

MUST NOT propose cases only for the settings that earn a discount

100%

100%

90%

-5%

Payroll rewrite sign-off: how many pay cases are there actually?

Criteria
Baseline
With context

Deliverable exists

100%

100%

Total number of weeks stated

100%

100%

Reduction to sixteen cases with named reasons

87%

62%

MUST NOT hand over one case per arrangement

100%

100%

Overtime-plus-holiday gap raised

100%

100%

Coverage stated against the case count

100%

100%

Salaried treatments are results, not absences

91%

100%

100%

2%

Rate card review before the pricing engine goes in

Criteria
Baseline
With context

Deliverable exists

100%

100%

Full size of the problem stated before reduction

100%

100%

The two score facts handled as one number

100%

100%

Reachable count reconciled

88%

100%

Large-loan discount identified as inert below 700

100%

100%

MUST NOT hand over the unreduced set as the test list

100%

100%

Referred-versus-priced ambiguity raised

100%

100%

Rates are computed, not described

100%

100%

100%

22%

Support keeps promising refunds finance then refuses to pay

Criteria
Baseline
With context

Deliverable exists

100%

100%

MUST NOT leave an outcome from the note without a result of its own

100%

100%

All eight combinations accounted for

100%

100%

The 14-day versus usage conflict raised

0%

100%

The monthly heavy-usage gap raised

100%

100%

Plan type identified as irrelevant inside 14 days

83%

100%

Cases cover the non-refund paths

100%

100%

Evaluated
Agent
Claude Code
Model
Claude Sonnet 4.6