Test planning & management

/qa:go-no-go

Release readiness gate

Run a formal release go/no-go review — consolidate every quality signal into a documented ship/hold decision with conditions, residual risk, and sign-off.

USAGE/qa:go-no-go <release-id>
Test planning & managementCTFL v4.0 §5.3 · CTAL-TMTest Leader · Test Manager

What it does

Pulls the sibling Release and Status reports (never re-deriving), evaluates each gate (pass rate, open defects by severity, perf, security, a11y, contracts, regression, residual risk) against a deterministic decision table, renders a readiness scorecard, and applies an aggregate rule to a GO / GO-with-conditions / NO-GO outcome with a stakeholder sign-off block.

When to use it

At the release gate, as the formal ship/hold decision. Pairs with status-report and release-report.

Prerequisites

qa.config.yml — paths, gates, tooling toggles, risk_areas (assumes conservative defaults if missing). Quality signals must exist (RELEASE-REPORT/STATUS-REPORT/TEST-PLAN, results).

Output

Release Go/No-Go Decision Record (governance extension of the 29119-3 Test Completion Report; no dedicated 29119-3 template) -> <paths.docs_dir>/GO-NO-GO-<release>.md.

Mechanics

How it works

  1. Config guard; resolve the release from args (or default to in-flight critical work)
  2. Consolidate inputs from the matching Release/Status/Plan reports; flag missing ones as gaps
  3. Evaluate G1–G8 gates against the deterministic decision table (met/not-met/waived)
  4. Render a readiness scorecard with measured values and evidence per gate
  5. Apply the aggregate rule: any blocker not met forces NO-GO or GO-with-conditions
  6. Confirm rollback + post-deploy plan and a stakeholder sign-off table; write the record

Why it works

The theory behind it

Release decision against exit criteria plus residual risk (CTFL §5.3; CTAL-TM release-decision practice). It is a cross-functional decision record layered over the 29119-3 reports, embodying Principle 1 — ship with stated residual risk, never claim 'zero bugs'; in doubt, default to the more conservative outcome.

CTFL v4.0 §5.3 · CTAL-TM

Example

See it in use

go-no-go
> /qa:go-no-go R2.4

✓ Correct when It consolidates the signals into a single ship/hold decision against the gates, with residual risk and sign-off lines.