Session-based exploratory testing per the Bachs' SBTM: authoring charters (Explore X with Y to discover Z), running time-boxed sessions (60-90 min), logging session sheets with TBS metrics, and closing with the PROOF session debrief (Past, Results, Outlook, Obstacles, Feelings). Bundles the classic exploration heuristics as references: Whittaker's seven test tours (Feature, Money, Landmark, Intellectual, Bad-data, Configuration, Garbage collector's), Kelly's FCC CUTS VIDS recon tours, Bach's SFDPOT what-to-vary catalog, Bolton's HICCUPPS-F oracle heuristic, and Bach's CRUSSPIC STMPL quality criteria - plus a ready-to-fill charter-card template and a session-sheet review checklist. Use when planning, chartering, running, debriefing, or reviewing an exploratory testing session, or when picking a test tour, heuristic, or oracle mid-session. For scripted manual test cases, use manual-test-script-author instead.
86
91%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
86%
1.01xAverage score across 10 eval scenarios
Passed
No findings from the security scan
Deep reference for exploratory-testing SKILL.md. CRUSSPIC STMPL is James
Bach's quality-criteria mnemonic. The thirteen criteria are enumerated under
"Quality Criteria Categories" in Bach's Heuristic Test Strategy Model (HTSM
v6.3, 2024-11-05), which defines a quality criterion as "some requirement
that defines what the product should be"
(HTSM).
The HTSM prints the criteria as named categories; the CRUSSPIC
STMPL letters are the memory aid taught over them, not an acronym
the HTSM itself spells out.
It overlaps with ISO/IEC 25010:2023 (the formal software- quality model) but offers a more practitioner-friendly mnemonic form that fits in an exploratory tester's working memory.
This reference is used when shaping a session's evaluation lens, and by
the product-risk-register workflow (in qa-process's risk-matrix
references/) when categorising risks by quality characteristic.
risk-matrix).framework-choice-advisor in
qa-process, including its vendor-evaluation reference).Does the system do what's claimed?
Functional correctness - the product performs its stated functions. Maps to ISO/IEC 25010 "Functional suitability."
Test heuristics: HICCUPPS-F's Claims oracle (hiccupps-f.md)
Does the system work consistently over time?
Maps to ISO 25010 "Reliability."
Can the user figure out how to use it?
Per Nielsen's usability heuristics.
Is the system safe from misuse?
Maps to ISO 25010 "Security." Composes with
qa-security-scanning,
qa-test-data-privacy.
Does the system grow with load?
Composes with qa-load-testing.
Is the system fast enough?
Distinct from Scalability - performance is "fast for the user";
scalability is "still fast when load grows." Composes with
qa-load-testing.
Can the user install + configure the system?
Maps to ISO 25010 "Portability - Installability."
Does the system work alongside other things?
Maps to ISO 25010 "Compatibility."
Can the support team diagnose + fix issues?
Can the testers verify the system?
Can the team change the system?
Maps to ISO 25010 "Maintainability."
Can the system move between environments?
Maps to ISO 25010 "Portability."
Can the system be adapted to other languages + cultures?
Composes with qa-localization.
ISO 25010 has 8 top-level characteristics:
| ISO 25010 | CRUSSPIC STMPL |
|---|---|
| Functional suitability | C (Capability) |
| Reliability | R (Reliability) |
| Usability | U (Usability) |
| Security | S1 (Security) |
| Performance efficiency | P1 (Performance), S2 (Scalability) |
| Compatibility | C2 (Compatibility) |
| Maintainability | M (Maintainability), T (Testability), S3 (Supportability) |
| Portability | I (Installability), P2 (Portability), L (Localizability) |
CRUSSPIC STMPL is more granular; ISO 25010 is more formal. The two are complementary, not substitutable. Per ISO/IEC 25010:2023 (cite by stable ID).
Pre-release review:
## Release v3.0 quality-criteria walkthrough
- **C - Capability:** Functional acceptance tests 98% pass. ✓
- **R - Reliability:** Last 30 days uptime 99.94% (SLA: 99.9%). ✓
- **U - Usability:** User research session N=8; 7/8 completed
signup without help (target: 6/8). ✓
- **S - Security:** Last pen-test 2026-03; all critical findings
fixed; SAST + DAST clean. ✓
- **S - Scalability:** k6 load test at 10x expected peak passed
with p99 < 800ms. ✓
- **P - Performance:** p95 latency 220ms (target 300ms). ✓
- **I - Installability:** New install flow 5 steps; user testing
4/5 completed. ✓
- **C - Compatibility:** Browser matrix Chrome / Firefox / Safari
all current + N-1 tested. ✓
- **S - Supportability:** All log lines structured; trace IDs
end-to-end. ✓
- **T - Testability:** E2E suite runs in 18 min; deterministic
mode available. ✓
- **M - Maintainability:** Sonar tech-debt rating A. ✓
- **P - Portability:** Cloud-portable (Terraform); no AWS-specific
primitives. ✓
- **L - Localizability:** All UI strings extracted to ICU
messages; 7 locales supported. ✓
Verdict: cleared for release.| Anti-pattern | Why it fails | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Treating CRUSSPIC STMPL as flat | Some criteria matter much more for some products (Security for fintech, Localizability for global B2C) | Weight per product context |
| Confusing Performance with Scalability | "Fast" doesn't mean "stays fast under load" | Test both independently |
| Treating Maintainability + Testability as "developer concerns" | They're quality criteria the tester evaluates | Include in release walkthrough |
| Skipping Supportability | Released system unmaintainable in production | Always walk S |
| One person evaluates all 13 | Inter-criterion expertise differs | Distribute walkthrough across team |
| Walkthrough at release time only | Quality criteria degrade silently between releases | Continuous monitoring per criterion |
risk-matrix references/.