Artifact content
Public inputs used for coverage review: requirements.html, test-cases.html, postman-tests.html, browser/device matrix, and supporting bug-report / SQL / API-doc artifacts.
This artifact shows two related QA skills:
- Designing detailed, meaningful scenarios
- Evaluating whether existing coverage is actually sufficient
For scenario design, the public manual test set contains 76 test cases grouped by UI, Auth, Game, E2E, Security, and Wallet. Each scenario uses practical fields such as ID, priority, preconditions, steps, test data, and expected result. On the API side, the public Postman suite shows chained scenarios with shared state such as access_token, session_id, game_id, spin_id, and round_id, which makes the scenarios meaningful for real product behavior rather than isolated endpoint checks.
For coverage evaluation, I compare the available artifacts against the product surface. The public requirements document contains 91 requirements across Auth, Game, UI, API, SQL, NFR, and Wallet modules. The manual test set covers the most execution-oriented modules, while API coverage is expanded through the Postman suite, browser-specific coverage is made explicit through the browser/device matrix, and technical/backend areas are supported by SQL and API-doc artifacts.
- Check whether high-risk areas have both positive and negative scenarios
- Check whether critical flows are covered by more than one perspective when needed, for example UI + API + DB reasoning
- Check whether environment coverage is explicit for browsers, breakpoints, auth state, and dependent data
- Check whether uncovered areas are truly low-priority or simply missing from the current suite
- Use priorities, module grouping, and traceability to decide where new scenarios should be added first
This is the practical meaning of evaluating test coverage: not counting documents, but checking whether the current scenarios give enough evidence for product quality and release confidence.