Claude

We use Claude for the reasoning-heavy parts of QA work rather than for code completion: reviewing whether a test plan actually covers the risks in a requirement, analysing a set of failures for a common root cause, and pressure-testing our own coverage assumptions before a release. It is genuinely useful as a second reader on a specification — asking what happens in the cases the document does not mention is exactly the work of test design, and having something that does it tirelessly surfaces gaps early. We also use it to turn technical findings into stakeholder-readable summaries without losing the detail an engineer needs. It does not write client deliverables unreviewed, and it does not see production data or confidential client material. Where a client’s policy excludes AI tooling entirely, we do this work manually and say so.