iql-context

Kind context (agentic-qa-core/references/skill-composition-strategy.md §2b). Shipped upstream and synced verbatim; a project adapts it through the two seams in §"How a project adapts it", never by editing this file.

Compact Rules

• DO: answer "why is the process shaped this way" from the index below, then point at the canonical reference for the procedure; never restate a DoD, a transition table or a link catalog that a reference already owns.
• DO: name stages by word (Shift-Left, Planning, Execution, Reporting, Documentation, Automation, Regression, Observation), never by number; a numbered "Stage N" in an older doc resolves through agentic-qa-core/references/stage-gates.md.
• DO: read .agents/project.yaml → qa.methodology before saying which stages a project runs or how strict its gates are; the shipped values are a default, not a decision.
• DO: read references/project-overrides.md for the project's own rules and exceptions; they win over this index for THAT project, and only there.
• DO NOT: resolve a web-vs-repo disagreement on your own. The repo's executable doctrine (agentic-qa-core/references/*) is what the skills enforce; the website is the public narrative. State both readings and cite both.
• DO NOT: treat this skill as SUT knowledge. Entities, endpoints, infra and Jira content live in .context/ maps and the project's <aspect>-context skills.
• DO NOT: edit this SKILL.md or its synced references in a consumer project; propose a refinement per agentic-qa-core/references/skill-refinement-protocol.md (project-owned prose goes in references/project-overrides.md).
• WHEN a question is about ONE aspect (phases and steps, the agentic contract, the eight approaches, the thirteen invariants): load only that reference from §"References".

Read full SKILL.md when: building a briefing that must explain the methodology to a subagent, answering "why" questions about the ladder or the stages, or checking which invariant a proposed shortcut violates.

What this skill knows

One aspect of this repository: its own QA methodology, the IQL, as the official site narrates it and as the repo enforces it. It knows the shape (phases, stages, steps, cycles, altitudes), the invariants, the agentic contract (autonomy, verifier, guardrails, execution profiles, light mode) and, per project, the adaptation values. It does not know the product under test.

Sources of truth (cited, never copied)

Source	What lives there	Role
agentic-qa-core/references/stage-gates.md	the stages by name, autonomy scale, contract table, DoD per stage	executable doctrine (wins)
agentic-qa-core/references/artifact-lifecycle.md	every artifact's created / moved / terminal status	executable doctrine (wins)
agentic-qa-core/references/planning-ladder.md	the ladder, the title grammar, the RTP and RTR amendments	ratified ladder
agentic-qa-core/references/traceability-linking.md	the link catalog, the coverage cascade, the no-roll-up rule	executable doctrine (wins)
agentic-qa-core/references/defect-management-doctrine.md	Bug / Defect / Improvement, the three axes, the four QA-process epics	executable doctrine (wins)
agentic-qa-core/references/test-design-doctrine.md	the five principles and the technique triggers	executable doctrine (wins)
agentic-qa-core/references/decision-elicitation-doctrine.md	how the human decides	executable doctrine (wins)
.agents/jira-workflows.json	the real state machines (Story, Bug, Test) of the instance	catalog, never restated here
.agents/project.yaml → qa.methodology, qa.qa_epics	what THIS project runs	adaptation seam 1
references/project-overrides.md	the project's own rules and exceptions	adaptation seam 2 (project-owned)
https://www.upexgalaxy.com/metodologia (+ /early-game, /mid-game, /late-game, /diagramas/*)	the public narrative: phases, steps, cycles, approaches, principles, light mode, metrics	narrative (cited, never wins over the repo)

Index of invariants

Each row states ONE invariant and cites where it comes from. "web" = the anchor on https://www.upexgalaxy.com/metodologia unless a phase page is named. "repo: none" = the repo does not encode it; the skill indexes it by web citation only (see references/).

Topic	Invariant	Web	Repo
Three phases	Early-Game (prevention, QA Analyst) · Mid-Game (detection, QA Automation Engineer) · Late-Game (observation, QA + DevOps). Phases group steps, not stages	#fases, /early-game	none: references/phases-steps-cycles.md
Eight stages, named never numbered	Shift-Left · Planning · Execution · Reporting · Documentation · Automation · Regression · Observation. A stage has a name, a DoD and a contract; steps are its breakdown	#stages, /diagramas/iql-completo	agentic-qa-core/references/stage-gates.md §"The stages, by name"
Shift-Left → shift-left-testing	pre-sprint, in batch, zero TMS entities; the ATP goes into the Story field; the Story stops at Estimation; the [QA] Shift-Left Review subtask tracks the pass	#stages, /early-game	agentic-qa-core/references/stage-gates.md §"Shift-Left"; .agents/skills/shift-left-testing/SKILL.md
Planning → sprint-testing	in-sprint; Set-first (ATS, then ATP, then ATR); the ATP item is born FROM the field; an ATR without Test Environment fails the DoD; STP / FTP find-or-create	#stages, /diagramas/sprint-testing	agentic-qa-core/references/stage-gates.md §"Planning"
Execution → sprint-testing	smoke as Go / No-Go first, then the Trifuerza beyond the plan; every finding classified before filing; a human agrees to every filing	#stages, #trifuerza	agentic-qa-core/references/stage-gates.md §"Execution"; agentic-qa-core/references/defect-management-doctrine.md Part 1
Reporting → sprint-testing	the ATR is a Test Execution item; a QA comment; links verified in direction; the human signs the transition	#stages	agentic-qa-core/references/stage-gates.md §"Reporting"; agentic-qa-core/references/traceability-linking.md §10
Documentation → test-documentation	a ROI gate over already-validated behaviour: exactly one verdict per scenario, most Deferred; a second-agent verifier recommended	#stages, /mid-game	agentic-qa-core/references/stage-gates.md §"Documentation"
Automation → test-automation	Candidates only; the plan is approved before code; verifiers green; the only stage with a mandatory separate verifier	#stages, /diagramas/automatizacion-de-tests	agentic-qa-core/references/stage-gates.md §"Automation"
Regression → regression-testing	every failure classified; a FLAKY verdict needs run history; GO / CAUTION / NO-GO; the human decides every CAUTION	#stages, /late-game	agentic-qa-core/references/stage-gates.md §"Regression"
Observation → no skill	declared and empty: its operating unit is an agentic routine, capability L4, no DoD	#stages, /late-game	agentic-qa-core/references/stage-gates.md §"Observation"
Sprint close is not a stage	STP and STR close at the batch boundary, by whichever of sprint-testing or regression-testing arrives first	#stages	agentic-qa-core/references/stage-gates.md §"Sprint close"
SDLC events around the loop	MTP once per product · STP at sprint open · development (step 2) is the SDLC sync point, in no stage · STR at sprint close	#stages, #bucle	agentic-qa-core/references/artifact-lifecycle.md §1 (MTP / STP / STR rows)
Artifact ladder and altitude	MTP (product, an Epic here) · FTP (feature) · STP (sprint) · ATP / ATS / ATR (story) · STR (sprint) · RTP and RTR (product, long-lived plan, one run per verdict) · TC / ATC (TMS layer) · TS (feature, optional). First token = altitude, P = Plan, R = Results	#artefactos	agentic-qa-core/references/planning-ladder.md §2 and its RTP / RTR amendments; agentic-qa-core/references/artifact-lifecycle.md §1
Title grammar	{ACRONYM}: {scope-id}: {descriptor}	#artefactos	agentic-qa-core/references/planning-ladder.md §3
Set-first and the one coverage edge	the ATS exists first and is mandatory even with one TC; ATS → Story is the ONLY edge that fills the coverage panel; ATP → Story and ATR → Story are administrative	#artefactos, /diagramas/gestion-de-tests	agentic-qa-core/references/traceability-linking.md §3, §4
Pre-sprint ATP lives in the field	before the sprint the ATP exists only in {{jira.acceptance_test_plan}}: no item, no DRAFT title; the item is born in Planning; labels shift-left-reviewed + shift-left-{YYYY-MM-DD}	/early-game	agentic-qa-core/references/artifact-lifecycle.md §1 (ATP row); AGENTS.md §9
An ATR needs an environment	no Test Execution without Test Environment; a hard gate, never collapsed	#principios	agentic-qa-core/references/stage-gates.md §"Planning" DoD
No results roll-up	the STR is a sibling recap, not the sum of the ATRs; the feature altitude has no run of its own	#artefactos	agentic-qa-core/references/traceability-linking.md §3
Three-axis parenting	parent = QA-process epic · issue link = source Story · components = product module; never a product epic	none	agentic-qa-core/references/defect-management-doctrine.md Part 4; AGENTS.md §9
Four QA-process epics	QA Master Test Plan · QA Test Repository · QA Test Artifacts · QA Defect Management; names from qa.qa_epics, label QA-Artifact	none	agentic-qa-core/references/defect-management-doctrine.md Part 4; .agents/project.yaml
Two modalities	jira-native (factory default) and jira-xray, resolved by probing; the modality changes the VERB, never the ROI verdict	#modalidades	.agents/skills/test-documentation/SKILL.md §"Phase 0"
ROI verdict is not a Jira status	Candidate / Manual / Deferred are verdicts; the same words also exist as statuses and are not the same thing	#jira	agentic-qa-core/references/artifact-lifecycle.md §1 (TC row), §1.1
Bug / Defect / Improvement	classified by the FEATURE's lifecycle stage, not by where it was found; the three share one Jira workflow; classify before filing	#jira, /diagramas/jira-bug	agentic-qa-core/references/defect-management-doctrine.md Part 1
Internal cycles	TMLC and TALC are pedagogical names mapped onto the stages; SDC (Story) and BLC (Bug) are the real state machines; PLC is declared empty	#ciclos	none by name: references/phases-steps-cycles.md; state machines in .agents/jira-workflows.json
Autonomy and verifier	a 0-5 scale per stage; a separate verifier where the stage says so	#stages	agentic-qa-core/references/stage-gates.md §"Autonomy scale (CSA 0-5)", §"Contract table"
The human decides	agent executes, evidence proves, the human owns the decision; dense or batched decisions go to the mkd deck	#principios	agentic-qa-core/references/decision-elicitation-doctrine.md; AGENTS.md §2
Jira workflows per type	status and transition NAMES come from .agents/jira-workflows.json, which wins over any SKILL.md	#jira, /diagramas/jira-user-story, /diagramas/jira-test	.agents/jira-workflows.json; .agents/jira-required.yaml
Trifuerza	UI · API · DB, the exploration model of Execution, run AFTER the smoke; surfaces chosen by triage, veto and risk score	#trifuerza	.agents/skills/sprint-testing/SKILL.md; agentic-qa-core/references/preflight-gate.md §5
Analyst + Automation Engineer	two roles, asynchronous and parallel; the TMLC → TALC seam is the I of Integrated	#ciclos, #principios	none: references/agentic-contract.md
The thirteen invariants	choreography … loop-not-sequence, each with a slug	#principios	partial: references/principles.md maps each to its repo twin
Maturity levels	L1 Prevention · L2 Early Detection · L3 Continuous Detection · L4 Production Observation; the level sets how far Late-Game goes	#iql, /late-game	agentic-qa-core/references/stage-gates.md §"The stages, by name" (Capability column)
KATA	four named layers plus optional Steps; test files consume, they are not a layer; @atc('KEY') names the code representation of an Acceptance Test Case	#arquitectura, /diagramas/automatizacion-de-tests	AGENTS.md §10; .agents/skills/test-automation/references/kata-architecture.md
Test design	AC-verify is not testing · the AC is the floor · one criterion explodes into many cases · risk lives outside the criterion; technique triggers	/early-game	agentic-qa-core/references/test-design-doctrine.md
Eight approaches	Shift-Left, Shift-Right, Risk-Based, Continuous, Agile, Exploratory, BDD, AI-Driven; the IQL's contribution is the ORDER, not the approaches	#fases	none: references/approaches.md
Light mode	four collapsible gates with condition and cost; four that never collapse	#principios	none as a mode: references/agentic-contract.md; the never-collapsed four are hard gates in agentic-qa-core/references/stage-gates.md

Rules (judgment, dated)

• 2026-09-24 · When the website and the repo disagree, the repo's executable doctrine is what the skills enforce; say so, cite both, and never "fix" one side from this skill. Measured: the disagreement ledger in the context-skills implementation report (fleet worker context-a), which lists the known cases with both readings.
• 2026-09-24 · "ATC" has two legitimate readings: on the site it is the Acceptance Test Case (a TC born from an acceptance criterion; A is never Automated), and in KATA @atc('KEY') is the code representation of that same case. Read AGENTS.md §10 "ATC" as the code method. Measured: #artefactos vs AGENTS.md §10.
• 2026-09-24 · A "Stage N" in an older skill or comment is a historical number, not a name; resolve it through the table in agentic-qa-core/references/stage-gates.md and answer with the name. Measured: numbers still appear in AGENTS.md §5 and in the sprint-testing / regression-testing headings.
• 2026-09-24 · Regression autonomy is stated as "3" on the site; the repo's contract table carries its own wording with a condition for a clean GO. Quote the repo when a skill asks what it may decide alone. Measured: #stages card Regression vs agentic-qa-core/references/stage-gates.md.

Not here

• The product under test (entities, endpoints, infra, personas) → .context/ maps and the project's own <aspect>-context skills (project-context mode context-skill).
• Any procedure: what a stage DOES step by step → the owning workflow skill.
• Jira content and status names → .context/PBI/ (the synced mirror) and .agents/jira-workflows.json.
• A test-architecture decision → .context/ADR/.

How a project adapts it (two seams, the body stays synced)

Kind of adaptation	Seam	Mechanism
Values: which stages the project runs, gate strictness, execution profile	.agents/project.yaml → qa.methodology	the yaml is bootstrap-only and schema-diffed, so a key upstream adds later is offered insert-only by bun run up
Prose: a project rule, a local exception, a renamed artifact	references/project-overrides.md	delivered once when missing, never overwritten (bootstrap-only), project-owned
The skill body and the other references	none	synced verbatim; a direct edit gets a parity row on the next sync, and the fix is a refinement proposal upstream

References

Load one per aspect; none is needed to answer from the index above.

Reference	Read when
references/phases-steps-cycles.md	the question names a phase, a step number, TMLC / TALC / SDC / BLC / PLC, a moment, or a maturity block
references/agentic-contract.md	roles and guardrails per stage, the two execution profiles, light mode, quality attributes by risk, the method's metrics, the agentic routine, golden sets
references/principles.md	the thirteen invariants by slug, the three seams of the I
references/approaches.md	one of the eight approaches and where the IQL makes it concrete
references/gotchas.md	something reads two different ways between the site, the repo and a project
references/project-overrides.md	always, in a consumer project: the local rules win there

Refinements

Lessons land as proposals per agentic-qa-core/references/skill-refinement-protocol.md, never as direct edits. A refinement that belongs to this project alone goes to references/project-overrides.md; one that belongs to the method goes upstream per agentic-qa-core/references/upstream-feedback.md.