CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

testland/manual-test-script-author

Builds stakeholder-readable scripted manual test cases from a feature spec in four formats: a step-table (preconditions / steps / expected result / actual / pass-fail / notes) for spreadsheet review, a Gherkin Given/When/Then format for BDD-aware teams, a business-language UAT script with acceptance-criteria mapping and contractual sign-off (references/uat-format.md), and a one-line-per-item execution checklist for smoke / on-call / bug-bash / compliance sweeps (references/checklist-format.md). Each script is self-contained (no implicit team knowledge), single-scenario (one happy + N edge per script), and includes the data setup the tester needs without being a developer. Use when a feature can't be (or shouldn't be) fully automated and a human tester needs an executable script or checklist - UAT sign-off rounds, regression baselines, certification testing, deploy smoke checklists, exploratory follow-up scripts.

94

0.98x
Quality

88%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

95%

0.98x

Average score across 10 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

High

Do not use without reviewing

Overview
Quality
Evals
Security
Files

Evaluation results

94%

-6%

"Check the premium is reasonable" is not a pass criterion

Criteria
Baseline
With context

Deliverable exists at the named path

100%

100%

The ambiguous date of birth is surfaced, not silently read

100%

76%

The expected premium is not asserted against an unconfirmed pricing table

100%

95%

Unsettled points listed as questions with owners

100%

100%

Every field the tester types is specified

100%

100%

Repeat runs within a day are handled

100%

100%

Each step has one observable result

100%

93%

Failure capture and the quote reference recorded

100%

100%

100%

"Make a transfer over the daily limit" - over which limit?

Criteria
Baseline
With context

Deliverable exists at the named path

100%

100%

Case is anchored to an account whose limit is actually published

100%

100%

Exact amounts with currency, positioned against the published threshold

100%

100%

The undefined Youth limit is raised, not invented

100%

100%

Cumulative counter handled so the case can be re-run the same day

100%

100%

Step-up passcode is part of the procedure

100%

100%

Reset boundary stated in an unambiguous timezone

100%

100%

Every step has one observable result, plus failure capture

100%

100%

98%

-2%

"Scan the pallet the usual way" - our receiving coverage is one paragraph

Criteria
Baseline
With context

Deliverable exists at the named path

100%

100%

One behaviour per scenario

100%

100%

Shared setup replaces 'the warehouse is set up'

100%

100%

The scan order is spelled out

100%

100%

Then steps assert the handheld or console text with figures

100%

91%

Purchase orders allocated so the pool survives

100%

100%

Supervisor override covered where it is required

100%

100%

Failure capture

100%

100%

91%

-9%

A payroll failure at step 19 cost us two days

Criteria
Baseline
With context

Deliverable exists at the named path

100%

100%

Split into separately runnable parts, one behaviour each

100%

100%

No part depends on another having been run

100%

62%

Each part names its employee and its expected figures

100%

90%

Repeatability of the consumable pay period is handled

100%

100%

Approver login accounted for where a run is committed

100%

100%

Index table with identifiers, coverage and run time

100%

100%

Failure capture

100%

100%

98%

1%

Nine steps, no way to tell whether any of them passed

Criteria
Baseline
With context

Deliverable exists at the named path

100%

100%

Every step carries a device-observable outcome

89%

92%

A specific unconsumed activation code is named

100%

100%

The pool is left usable for the next tester

100%

100%

Handset, OS and app build pinned to a device that can run it

100%

100%

Wi-Fi state stated per phase, in the right direction

100%

100%

Failure record an engineer can reproduce from

100%

100%

100%

2%

TC-15 only works if somebody else ran TC-14 first

Criteria
Baseline
With context

Deliverable exists at the named path

100%

100%

Starts from a named seeded booking, not an inherited one

100%

100%

Fare choice is pinned and justified

100%

100%

Payment step present with usable card details

100%

100%

Exact from-seat and to-seat, both actually available

100%

100%

The environment is left able to run the case again

100%

100%

Each step has one observable result

100%

100%

Failure capture

75%

100%

100%

7%

TC-207 can only be run by the person who wrote it

Criteria
Baseline
With context

Deliverable exists at the named path

100%

100%

Login and order are pinned to real seeded values

100%

100%

Refund amount is an exact figure with its currency stated

100%

100%

Every action carries one observable expected result

100%

100%

Unsettled points raised as questions instead of decided

100%

100%

Second run the same afternoon is accounted for

62%

100%

Email verification is executable

80%

100%

Failure capture block present

100%

100%

100%

The import case passes the first time and fails every time after

Criteria
Baseline
With context

Deliverable exists at the named path

100%

100%

Expected counts computed from the file

100%

100%

The two risky rows are the ones inspected, with exact expected values

100%

100%

Second run produces the same result as the first

100%

100%

Tenant and login are pinned to ones that work

100%

100%

The upload configuration is stated

100%

100%

Each step has one observable result

100%

100%

Failure capture

100%

100%

76%

2%

The post-deploy sweep has grown until nobody runs it

Criteria
Baseline
With context

Deliverable exists at the named path

100%

100%

Cut to something that fits the window

0%

0%

The entry that cannot be done at deploy time is removed and said so

100%

100%

Every entry names a specific thing that tells the engineer it is fine

83%

91%

Time allowance per section and for the run

100%

100%

A completed run identifies which deploy it was

100%

100%

Correct account and merchant scoping

100%

100%

Failure capture and stated non-coverage

100%

100%

100%

2%

The ward manager cannot run the acceptance script we sent her

Criteria
Baseline
With context

Deliverable exists at the named path

100%

100%

No step requires technical access or vocabulary

100%

100%

Each contractual item is mapped to the actions that demonstrate it

100%

100%

Session setup names the exact patient, ward, accounts and release

100%

100%

The rejection case is out of this run

100%

100%

Every action states an outcome the signer can judge

100%

100%

Written confirmation section fit for the contract

100%

100%

Failure capture during the session

75%

100%

Evaluated
Agent
Claude Code
Model
Claude Sonnet 4.6

Table of Contents