Wardn HubTrusted MCP server directory.

Registry

  • MCP Servers
  • Skills
  • Categories

Resources

  • API docs
  • Score method

Contribute

  • Submit server
  • Advertise
© 2026 Wardn Hub
Wardn Hub
MCP ServersSkillsCategoriesAPI docsSubmit server
Submit server
skills/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills/factory-acceptance-test

factory-acceptance-test

1
mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills·Audit passed·Snapshot 5915409e7dee

Summary

This source did not publish a separate summary. Review SKILL.md before using the skill.

SKILL.md

Factory Acceptance Test Skill

A FAT is the last moment a defect is the factory's problem instead of yours. This skill writes the plan (or the report) with the parts that actually get argued over at the line: which spec clause each test covers, how many units get pulled and at what AQL, what exactly fails a lot, and who signs — so acceptance is a decision with a name on it, not a vibe at the end of a factory visit.

What This Skill Produces

  • A test coverage matrix mapping every test to the spec requirement it verifies
  • A sampling plan (ANSI/ASQ Z1.4) with lot size, inspection level, and AQL per defect class
  • Unambiguous pass/fail criteria and lot accept/reject rules
  • Golden-sample handling procedure
  • A deviation log format and a sign-off block with authority levels

Required Inputs

Ask for these if not provided; if the spec is thin, draft the matrix from the product description and mark rows [spec clause to confirm]:

  • Product and spec — the requirements document or at minimum a feature/claims list
  • Lot size — units in the lot(s) under acceptance
  • Product risk profile — safety-relevant? battery? affects AQL choice
  • Prior quality history — first article vs mature product (allows tightened/reduced inspection)
  • Who signs — customer QE, factory QA, third-party inspector?

Sampling & Classification Framework

Defect classes and default AQLs (ANSI/ASQ Z1.4, General Inspection Level II, normal inspection — the consumer-electronics defaults; adjust with reason):

ClassDefinitionDefault AQL
CriticalSafety hazard, regulatory violation, data loss0 — any occurrence rejects the lot
MajorProduct fails to function, or defect the user will certainly notice and return1.0 (tighten to 0.65 for premium/first lots)
MinorCosmetic or workmanship issue within limit samples' tolerance but noted
2.5 (relax to 4.0 for bulk/industrial)

From lot size + Level II, derive the sample-size code letter and accept/reject numbers from the Z1.4 tables; state them explicitly in the plan (e.g. "Lot 3,000 → code K → n=125; Major Ac=3/Re=4"). Switch to tightened inspection after 2 of 5 consecutive lots rejected; reduced only with sustained history.

Golden samples. Two signed, serialised golden samples minimum — one held at the factory line, one at the buyer. Sealed, dated, with an expiry/refresh rule (refresh on any ECO that changes fit/finish/function). Cosmetic judgement is against the limit-sample boundary set, never against memory.

Deviations. Any test performed differently than planned, any borderline judgement, and any use-as-is decision goes in the deviation log — numbered, with disposition and approver.

Output Format

FAT [plan | report]: [product] — lot [ID]

  1. Scope & lot definition — product rev, lot size, factory, date
  2. Test coverage matrix — table: test #, spec clause covered, method/equipment, sample basis (100% / AQL sample), pass criterion
  3. Sampling plan — lot size, code letter, n, and Ac/Re per defect class
  4. Pass/fail & lot disposition rules — accept / reject / rework-and-rescreen conditions
  5. Golden & limit sample register — serials, locations, seal dates, refresh trigger
  6. Deviation log — #, description, class, disposition, approver
  7. Results (report only) — defects found per class vs Ac/Re, failure detail with photos referenced
  8. Sign-off block — lot disposition, name, role, authority, date; rejection escalation path

Quality Checks

  • Every spec requirement appears in the coverage matrix, or its exclusion is stated
  • Sample sizes and Ac/Re numbers are explicit — not "per AQL 1.0"
  • Critical defects have Ac=0 and an immediate-stop instruction
  • Cosmetic criteria reference physical limit samples, not adjectives
  • The report states defects per class against Ac/Re, and the disposition follows arithmetically
  • Sign-off names a role with authority to reject the lot

Anti-Patterns

  • Do not write "inspect to AQL 1.0" without the sample size and accept/reject numbers — that phrase settles nothing
  • Do not let critical defects carry a non-zero acceptance number
  • Do not judge cosmetics against memory or photos alone — physical limit samples or it will be relitigated every lot
  • Do not allow rework-and-reinspect of a rejected lot without 100% rescreen of the reworked defect mode
  • Do not accept a lot with an unsigned deviation in the log
  • Do not let golden samples go stale across an ECO — refresh or they certify the wrong product

Related skills

capacity-planningcompetitor-teardowncontext-engineering-reviewrunbook-writerreceipts-audit