A recruiter-friendly collection of realistic, fictional QA artifacts: manual test cases, API cases, bug reports, a regression checklist, and an exploratory testing charter.
This is a personal portfolio project. The examples do not describe an employer, customer, production system, or private testing engagement. Names, identifiers, environments, and evidence are synthetic.
| Area | Artifact | What it demonstrates |
|---|---|---|
| Manual testing | Web checkout cases | Positive, negative, boundary, recovery, and accessibility coverage |
| API testing | Orders API cases | Status, contract, idempotency, malformed input, and rate-limit checks |
| Bug reporting | Duplicate order | Reproducible high-impact defect with risk and fix verification |
| Bug reporting | False success state | Expected vs actual behavior and error-path evidence |
| Regression | Checkout checklist | Risk-based retest coverage |
| Exploratory testing | Interrupted checkout charter | Timeboxed investigation and observation strategy |
- Start from product risk and observable user outcomes.
- Separate severity (impact) from priority (scheduling).
- Record exact preconditions, actions, expected behavior, and evidence.
- Include negative, boundary, accessibility, compatibility, and recovery cases.
- Protect privacy by using synthetic data and sanitizing attachments.
- Turn confirmed high-risk findings into regression coverage.
| Level | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Critical | Data integrity, security, payment, or complete critical-path failure |
| High | Major workflow failure with no acceptable workaround |
| Medium | Meaningful defect with a practical workaround |
| Low | Minor usability, content, or cosmetic issue |
Fictional QA portfolio with manual and API test cases, reproducible bug reports, regression coverage, and exploratory testing examples.
quality-assurance, software-testing, manual-testing, test-cases, bug-reporting, regression-testing, exploratory-testing, api-testing
MIT