exploratory-testing-advanced

<default_to_action> When exploring software or investigating quality risks:

1. CREATE charter with mission, scope, and time-box (45-90 min)
2. APPLY heuristics: SFDIPOT (quality criteria), FEW HICCUPPS (consistency oracles)
3. EXPLORE systematically using test tours (Business District, Bad Neighborhood, Historical)
4. DOCUMENT findings in real-time with notes, screenshots, evidence
5. DEBRIEF: What learned? What's next? Share via agent memory

Quick Heuristic Selection:

• What to test → SFDIPOT (Structure, Function, Data, Interfaces, Platform, Operations, Time)
• Recognize problems → FEW HICCUPPS (Familiar, Explainable, World, History, Image, Comparable, Claims, Users, Product, Purpose, Standards)
• Navigate app → Test Tours (12 types for different exploration strategies)

Critical Success Factors:

• Exploration is skilled, structured thinking - not random clicking
• Document discoveries, not pre-planned test cases
• Pair testing reveals more than solo exploration </default_to_action>

Quick Reference Card

When to Use

• Investigating new or changed features
• Finding bugs automation misses
• Learning unfamiliar systems
• Risk discovery before test planning

Session Structure (SBTM)

| Phase | Duration | Activity | |-------|----------|----------| | Charter | 5 min | Define mission, scope, focus | | Explore | 45-75 min | Systematic investigation | | Note | Continuous | Document findings real-time | | Debrief | 10-15 min | Summarize, prioritize, share |

SFDIPOT Heuristic (What to Test)

| Letter | Focus | Example Questions | |--------|-------|------------------| | Structure | Is it properly composed? | Code structure, UI layout, data schema | | Function | Does it do what it should? | Core features work correctly | | Data | Handles data correctly? | CRUD, validation, persistence | | Interfaces | Interacts well? | APIs, UI, integrations | | Platform | Works in environment? | Browsers, OS, devices | | Operations | Can be used/managed? | Install, config, monitor | | Time | Handles timing? | Concurrency, timeouts, scheduling |

FEW HICCUPPS Oracle (Recognize Problems)

| Consistency With | Check | |-----------------|-------| | Familiar problems | Does this look like a known bug pattern? | | Explainable | Can behavior be explained rationally? | | World | Matches real-world expectations? | | History | Consistent with prior versions? | | Image | Matches brand/product image? | | Comparable | Similar to competing products? | | Claims | Matches specs/docs/marketing? | | Users | Meets user expectations? | | Purpose | Fulfills intended purpose? | | Statements | Matches what devs said? |

Test Tours (12 Types)

| Tour | Strategy | |------|----------| | Business District | Critical business flows | | Historical | Where bugs clustered before | | Bad Neighborhood | Known problem areas | | Money | Revenue-impacting features | | Landmark | Navigate by key features | | Intellectual | Complex, thinking-intensive features | | FedEx | Follow data through system | | Garbage Collector | Cleanup and edge cases | | Museum | Help docs and examples | | Rained-Out | What happens when things fail? | | Couch Potato | Minimal effort paths | | Obsessive-Compulsive | Repetitive actions |

---

Session Note Template

**Charter:** Explore [area] to discover [what] focusing on [heuristic]
**Time-box:** 60 min | **Tester:** [name] | **Date:** [date]

## Session Notes
- [timestamp] Observation/finding
- [timestamp] Bug: [description] - [severity]
- [timestamp] Question: [unclear behavior]

## Findings Summary
- Bugs: X (Critical: Y, Major: Z)
- Questions: X
- Ideas: X

## Coverage
- Areas explored: [list]
- Heuristics used: [SFDIPOT areas]
- % Time on: Bug investigation 30%, Exploration 50%, Setup 20%

## Next Steps
- [ ] Deep dive on [area]
- [ ] Follow up on question about [topic]

---

Agent-Assisted Exploration

// Collaborative exploration session
await Task("Exploratory Session", {
  charter: 'Explore checkout flow for payment edge cases',
  duration: '60min',
  heuristics: ['SFDIPOT', 'FEW_HICCUPPS'],
  tour: 'money',
  collaboration: 'human-navigator-agent-driver'
}, "qe-flaky-test-hunter");

// Agent generates test variations while human observes
await Task("Edge Case Generation", {
  area: 'payment-form',
  variations: ['boundary-values', 'invalid-inputs', 'concurrent-submits']
}, "qe-test-generator");

// Visual exploration
await Task("Visual Exploration", {
  tour: 'landmark',
  focus: 'responsive-breakpoints',
  compare: 'baseline-screenshots'
}, "qe-visual-tester");

---

Agent Coordination Hints

Memory Namespace

aqe/exploratory/
├── sessions/*           - Session notes and findings
├── charters/*           - Reusable charter templates
├── bug-clusters/*       - Historical bug patterns
└── heuristic-results/*  - What heuristics revealed

Fleet Coordination

const exploratoryFleet = await FleetManager.coordinate({
  strategy: 'exploratory-testing',
  agents: [
    'qe-flaky-test-hunter',   // Pattern recognition
    'qe-visual-tester',       // Visual anomalies
    'qe-quality-analyzer'     // Risk assessment
  ],
  topology: 'mesh'
});

---

Pairing Patterns

| Pattern | Human Role | Agent Role | |---------|------------|------------| | Driver-Navigator | Navigate strategy | Execute variations | | Strong-Style | Dictate actions | Record findings | | Ping-Pong | Observe one area | Explore another |

---

Related Skills

• context-driven-testing - RST foundations
• risk-based-testing - Focus exploration on risk
• agentic-quality-engineering - Agent coordination

---

Remember

Exploratory testing = simultaneous learning, test design, and test execution.

Not random clicking. Structured, skilled investigation guided by heuristics and oracles. Document discoveries in real-time. Pair testing amplifies findings.

With Agents: Agents generate variations, recognize patterns, and maintain session notes while humans apply judgment and intuition. Combine agent thoroughness with human insight.

Gotchas

• Agent treats exploratory testing as scripted test execution — remind it: exploration means learning + adapting in real-time
• Session notes from agents lack the "why I tried this" reasoning — explicitly ask for decision rationale
• 90-minute sessions cause context overflow — cap at 45 minutes with explicit debrief
• Agent defaults to happy-path exploration — explicitly assign "Bad Neighborhood" or "Saboteur" tours for negative testing
• SFDIPOT heuristics are misapplied when agent doesn't understand the domain — provide domain context upfront