Testability Analysis

When to Use

Use this skill when you need to assess requirements and systems for controllability, observability, isolation, and reproducibility.
Use it to review an existing plan, result, or evidence set and produce actionable improvements.
Use it when context is incomplete but a bounded first pass is still valuable.

Default to Markdown for review, execution, and incremental refinement.
When the user requests tables, CSV, JSON, or ticket fields, preserve risk, evidence, priority, and boundary information.
For machine-consumed output, confirm the schema, enums, and required fields first.

Read and follow prompts/testability-analysis.md, including its input contract, execution rules, minimum coverage, and output order.
Add only context that changes the decision: scope, environment, version, constraints, evidence, and success criteria.
Audit the input, then separate confirmed facts, working assumptions, and open questions.
When the task requests architecture-testability-review or architecture mode, start from architecture artifacts, dependency topology, asynchronous boundaries, test seams, substitute strategy, fault-injection entry points, and environment reproduction while retaining the generic testability dimensions.
Rank by risk and evidence strength, and produce an artifact that can be executed or reviewed directly.
If information is missing, deliver a bounded first pass and state which conclusions remain unsupported.

Always read prompts/testability-analysis.md; it is the complete execution specification for this skill.
For evaluation or regression, read evals/eval.yaml and the relevant cases under evals/cases/.
Load references/, examples/, scripts/, or output-formats.md only when those directories exist and the task needs them.
To regress architecture-testability-review, use the architecture-* Evals and local trigger data while retaining this physical Skill directory; do not create an alias directory.

do not confuse framework choice with testability
state value and cost for each improvement
never expose unsafe backdoors for testing
In architecture mode, bind seam, substitute, isolation, and fault-injection judgments to architecture-level sources; a framework name is not testability evidence.
Never invent system behavior, fields, data, metrics, or root causes absent from the evidence.
Link important conclusions to evidence; mark unsupported conclusions as hypotheses with a verification method.
Explain priority using business impact, likelihood, or detectability.

Covered: observability, controllability, isolation, determinism, data setup, fault injection, environment parity, automation interfaces.
Separated facts, assumptions, gaps, and recommendations.
Gave high-risk items a priority, evidence basis, owner or next action.
Defined verifiable decision criteria instead of generic advice.
Performed no unauthorized production writes or destructive actions.

Listing checks without preconditions, expected outcomes, or evidence.
Marking everything high priority and avoiding tradeoffs.
Substituting tool names or generic theory for domain reasoning.
Refusing incomplete input, or pretending incomplete evidence supports certainty.

Start with paths most likely to cause business loss, safety issues, or release blockage.
Reduce uncertainty through the smallest verifiable experiment and record reproduction conditions.
Make the artifact executable and independently reviewable by another engineer.