Ulw Qa

---
name: "ulw-qa"
description: "[omh] Hermes UltraQA workflow: adversarial QA and fix loops. Use when the user says: ultraqa, adversarial qa, hostile scenarios, e2e qa, real-world qa, qa scenario, release qa, 敵対的QA."
metadata:
  hermes:
    tags: [workflow, oh-my-hermes, verification]
    category: verification
    phase: qa
    role: reviewer
    quality_tier: scenario-gated
---

# Ultraqa

This is a Hermes-native `ultraqa` workflow skill.

## Why This Exists

`ultraqa` exists to keep `verification` work explicit, evidence-backed, and inside the Hermes/executor boundary instead of relying on ad hoc chat narration.

## Do Not Use When

- The request is casual chat, a status-only acknowledgement, or another workflow has stronger routing evidence.
- The user needs implementation, review, CI, merge, or external publishing evidence that has not been delegated or observed.

## Examples

Good example:

- Prompt: $ultraqa test the setup wizard with hostile install paths, stale config, and missing PATH cases.
- Expected behavior: Generate adversarial QA scenarios, expected signals, observed results, and fix-or-retry routing.
- Why: The request asks for verification pressure and hostile scenarios.

Bad example:

- Prompt: ultraqa: treat casual chat or unaccepted work as if this workflow already produced verified results.
- Expected behavior: Ask a clarification question or route to a narrower workflow instead of forcing `ultraqa`.
- Why: The request lacks the required inputs or would overclaim work that Hermes did not observe.

## Completion Checklist

- The scenario, expected behavior, observed result, and pass/fail basis are named.
- Proposed fixes are separated from observed QA evidence.
- Missing or failed verification routes back to plan, fix, or a narrower test.

## Recovery Notes

- If the expected behavior is unclear, route back to plan before running adversarial checks.
- If verification fails, return to fix or research with the failed signal instead of advancing.

## Workflow Lane

- Current lane: **Coding handoff** (`idea-to-deploy`, `llm-app-dev`, `cto-loop`, `deploy-and-monitor`, `code-review`, `build-failure-triage`, `verification-gate`, `security-safety-review`, `+13 more`) - coding owners, handoffs, review, CI, and merge evidence.
- If intent belongs to another lane, hand back to `oh-my-hermes` or name the adjacent workflow.
- Shared product, routing, compatibility, and evidence rules: `omh-routing/references/skill-common-rail.md`.

## Use When

Use when the task needs adversarial test scenarios, verification, and fix loops.

    Strong routing signals: `ultraqa`, `$ultraqa`, `adversarial qa`, `hostile scenarios`, `e2e qa`, `real-world qa`, `qa scenario`, `release qa`, `敵対的QA`, `リリース前QA`, `障害シナリオ`, `장애 상황`, `쿠버네티스 장애`, `적절히 진단`, `검증 체크리스트`, `릴리즈 전 gate`, `对抗式测试`, `发布前测试`, `故障场景`

## Catalog Metadata

Category: `verification`
Phase: `qa`
Hermes role: `reviewer`
Quality tier: `scenario-gated`
Reasoning demand: `standard`

Quality bar:

- Do not start this engine as an automatic continuation of another skill's output: an accepted plan, a clarified brief, or a routing recommendation is planning evidence, not permission. Unless the user explicitly invoked this engine themselves, restate in one line what will start (engine, scope, selected executor) and wait for the user's explicit go-ahead first.
- A mid-run user message is an interjection, not a stop: answer it briefly and, in the same reply, continue the run — re-read the phase todo when one is active and dispatch or advance the next pending step, or state exactly what the run is waiting on (for example, lanes still in flight that resume when their results return). Only the user's explicit stop or cancel, or the engine's own completion gate, ends the run; when the interjection changes scope, say so and update the declared plan or todo instead of silently abandoning it.
- Generate hostile scenarios from changed behavior and known risk areas.
- Report pass/fail evidence separately from proposed fixes.
- Delegate code mutations discovered by QA to the selected coding executor.
- When Hermes owns the coding path, read `hermes_coding_harness/v1` before saying build, verification, review, docs, or PR-prep evidence exists.

Handoff policy:

Hermes can design scenarios and report observed results; code fixes discovered by QA should become selected executor/runtime handoffs.

Required inputs:

- changed behavior
- acceptance criteria
- known risk areas

Expected outputs:

- adversarial scenarios
- pass/fail evidence
- fix recommendations

Artifact expectations:

- QA scenario evidence
- runtime verification summary

Safety rules:

- Do not imply hidden Hermes runtime behavior.
- Use the smallest verification that can prove the claim.

## Runtime Evidence

Preferred harness for this skill: `qa-specialist`.

```sh
omh runtime record --skill ultraqa --harness qa-specialist --status started
```

Record observed delegation results; otherwise return `not_available` or `not_observed`.
Prepared OMH routing is not execution, review, CI, merge-readiness, or merge evidence.
- When wrapper metadata includes `memory_review_card/v1` or `handoff_context_pack/v1`, treat it as reviewed OMH-local or wrapper-supplied context only. Use conflict-free context summaries to shape plans and handoffs, but do not claim Hermes internal memory was read or changed.
Preserve workflow intent and stop conditions; verify before claiming completion.

Use Hermes-native subagent/delegation features when available: native subagents -> Hermes delegation when available, otherwise sequential lanes.

Shared product, compatibility, topology, memory, harness, and execution rules: `omh-routing/references/skill-common-rail.md`. Load it when applicable; otherwise name an unavailable capability.