Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add Kokxi/qa-test-skills --skill qa-stakeholder-communicationgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Kokxi/qa-test-skillsWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/kokxi/qa-test-skills/qa-stakeholder-communication)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/kokxi/qa-test-skills/qa-stakeholder-communication"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kokxi/qa-test-skills/qa-stakeholder-communication/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/kokxi/qa-test-skills/qa-stakeholder-communication"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/kokxi/qa-test-skills/qa-stakeholder-communication.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00117 | $0.01844 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00059 | $0.00922 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00369 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00184 |
Grade A, and why
qa-stakeholder-communication scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 6d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
What it actually says
⚠️ 安全警告：本技能的示例可能涉及订单号、支付金额、截图、身份证、手机号等敏感数据。 实际使用时请勿粘贴真实生产数据、客户信息或财务凭证；测试前应脱敏/掩码处理。 本技能仅在 workspace/ 输出评估文件，不持久化、不外传、不跨会话复用。
干系人沟通
核心原则
同样一个Bug，跟不同人说完全不同的表述方式——说对方关心的，而不是你关心的。
三类沟通模式
模式1：跟开发说（技术视角）
沟通重点：
├─ 精确的复现步骤：每一步操作
├─ 日志/截图：错误信息、异常堆栈
├─ 根因推测：可能的原因
├─ 环境信息：浏览器、系统、配置
└─ 影响范围：哪些功能受影响
沟通格式：
[Bug标题] [严重程度]
复现步骤：
1. ...
2. ...
3. ...
错误日志：[日志内容]
截图：[截图描述]
推测原因：[原因分析]
影响范围：[影响描述]
模式2：跟PM说（业务视角）
沟通重点：
├─ 用户影响：哪些用户受影响
├─ 严重程度：业务影响多大
├─ 修复优先级：建议优先级
├─ 对其他功能的阻塞
└─ 预计修复时间
沟通格式：
[Bug标题]
影响：[用户范围]
严重程度：[业务影响]
优先级：[P0-P3]
阻塞：[是否阻塞其他功能]
预计修复：[时间估算]
模式3：跟老板说（决策视角）
沟通重点：
├─ 业务影响：对业务的影响
├─ 发布风险：是否影响发布
├─ 建议决策：建议怎么做
├─ 要什么资源：需要什么支持
└─ 时间节点：什么时候能解决
沟通格式：
[问题描述]
业务影响：[影响描述]
发布风险：[风险评估]
建议决策：[建议方案]
资源需求：[需要什么]
时间节点：[时间计划]
高危表达对比
| 场景 | 不要说 | 可以说 |
|---|---|---|
| Bug修复延迟 | "开发没时间" | "这个Bug涉及核心逻辑，需要更多时间确保质量" |
| 测试延期 | "测试做不完" | "为了保证质量，建议延长2天测试时间" |
| 质量问题 | "质量很差" "这个功能有风险" | "这个功能需要更多测试时间" |
| 资源不足 | "人不够" | "为了按时交付，建议增加1名测试人员" |
| 需求变更 | "需求又变了" | "这个变更会影响测试范围，建议重新评估时间" |
沟通场景模板
场景1：Bug评审会
参会角色：开发、测试、PM
沟通内容：
├─ 测试：Bug描述、复现步骤、影响范围
├─ 开发：根因分析、修复方案、修复时间
└─ PM：优先级评估、资源协调
场景2：发布评审会
参会角色：开发、测试、PM、运维
沟通内容：
├─ 测试：测试结果、质量评估、风险提示
├─ 开发：变更内容、技术风险
├─ PM：业务影响、发布决策
└─ 运维：部署方案、回滚方案
场景3：质量报告
报告对象：老板、PM
报告内容：
├─ 质量指标：缺陷密度、漏测率
├─ 质量趋势：改善/稳定/恶化
├─ 风险提示：高风险区域
└─ 改进建议：建议措施
应用场景
发现一个支付Bug，需要同步给不同角色 → 跟开发说：技术细节+复现步骤+日志截图（定位问题） → 跟PM说：影响用户数+严重程度+修复时间（评估影响） → 跟老板说：一句话结论+业务影响+风险等级（决策依据）
Bug评审会上开发说"这个没问题" → 沟通场景应对：用数据和截图说话，避免"我觉得"，使用"数据显示"
自检清单
沟通完成后检查：
- 是否针对受众定制了信息？
- 是否包含了对方需要的决策信息？
- 是否避免了高危表达？
- 是否达成了沟通目标？
检查清单
- 受众角色是否识别？
- 沟通策略是否定制？
- 关键信息是否突出？
- 推动方案是否可行？
- 反馈机制是否建立？
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 6d ago Changed 491dbce0e0b2
- 11d ago First seen · 190 lines · 117 tokens per session scan A c3a467e9452e
qa-stakeholder-communication is a skill published in the GitHub repository Kokxi/qa-test-skills (25 stars, last pushed 8d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 117 tokens to every session and 1,844 once invoked, about $0.0006 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
sparc-methodology
SPARC (Specification, Pseudocode, Architecture, Refinement, Completion) comprehensive development methodology with multi-agent orchestration.
swarm-advanced
Advanced swarm orchestration patterns for research, development, testing, and complex distributed workflows.
code-review
Reviews Spec Kit code changes for positive and negative test coverage, regression evidence for bug fixes, and consistent repository terminology. Use when reviewing a diff or pull request. Do not use for implementing changes or posting GitHub review actions.
agent-harness-fault-injection
Use when an agent workflow needs deterministic recovery evidence for sandbox, MCP/tool, worker, checkpoint, memory, or orchestration failures.
octocode-benchmark
Use when planning, running, grading, or reporting the by-hand Octocode research benchmark — pairwise matchups (Octocode anchor vs one baseline: gh+RTK, gh+Headroom, or plain gh) over markdown questions, with a fresh isolated runner agent per (question, arm, pass), one blind judge per question grading two answers X/Y…
octocode-graph-eval
Use when you need a measurable keep/discard loop — goal→KPI, baseline vs target, held-out checks, eval suites, or don't-stop-till-done against a runnable sensor. Not for ordinary ship checks where 'tests passed' is enough.