2 ms·

QA receives whatever gets merged and (what they decide gets) deployed (to test); they cannot block PRs. It would be nice though to make some checks block merge,

QA receives whatever gets merged and (what they decide gets) deployed (to test); they cannot block PRs. It would be nice though to make some checks block merge, i.e. Required workflows. Learning from bugs is amazing. Connect to production support tickets to link code changes to real incidents. When done manually by on-call, there is no other historical context. Automate estimation with "this story reminds me of stories A, B, C, which were estimated to be X points and took Y days." A link lets folks drill down to code metrics, artifact version, etc. A QA agent would be remarkable in that it has a complete and total timeline for everything, and can be queried in chat.

GTCHO 1y ago
Completely agree. Linking incidents back to code changes is one of the most valuable things a team can do but it's rarely done well. In this case, the agent actually learns from that full timeline production incidents, support tickets, commit diffs. It surfaces patterns you’d never catch manually, like an issue that only appears under high concurrency. Also yes on chat querying. One of the most useful parts was letting PMs ask questions like “Has this bug happened since April?” and getting a full trace across releases. The idea of automating grooming using historical story similarity is spot on too. This could easily save teams hours per sprint.
GTCHO 1y ago
[dead]