// Interview Prep/Prep plans/7-Day Manual QA Prep Plan
๐๏ธ 7-Day Manual QA Prep Plan
Junior-to-mid QA engineers preparing for a structured Manual QA interview loop. Assumes you have some testing exposure โ this plan sharpens your test-design instincts, builds interview-ready examples, and targets the specific question banks interviewers use for manual and exploratory testing rounds.
// GOAL
Arrive at the Manual QA interview with sharp test-design technique, structured exploratory testing habits, high-quality bug reports, and confident answers to questions on testing fundamentals, defect lifecycle, JIRA, and SQL.
// THE PLAN
Build a precise mental model of testing types, the defect lifecycle, and the SDLC
// STUDY
- Testing types and where each fits: smoke, sanity, regression, exploratory, UAT โ and why interviewers test your vocabulary precisely, not just that you know the words
- SDLC models: Waterfall, V-model, Agile โ where testing sits in each, what 'shift left' means in practice, and how test planning changes with each model
- The defect lifecycle: new โ open โ assigned โ fixed โ retest โ closed; when to reopen and why escalation paths matter for communication with developers
- Test case anatomy: objective, preconditions, steps, expected result, actual result, severity โ and why each field earns its place when a developer challenges your findings
// PRACTISE
- Read the Manual QA role page and list the 3 topic areas where your current answers feel least confident โ these become your re-study targets on Days 6โ7
- For a login screen, name 5 testing types that apply (e.g. smoke, regression, exploratory) and write one sentence explaining what each type would verify โ practise precision
- Write 3 practice bug reports for imagined defects: each must have a crisp title, a correct severity vs priority split, and steps to reproduce that a developer could follow without asking a follow-up question
Deliverable
A written list of your 3 weakest topic areas and 3 practice bug reports you would be comfortable showing an interviewer โ these feed directly into Days 6โ7.
Master the techniques interviewers build exercises around
// STUDY
- Equivalence partitioning: dividing valid and invalid input classes for a field, deriving the minimum representative test set โ practise with worked examples, not just definitions
- Boundary-value analysis: testing at, just below, and just above partition boundaries โ understanding why off-by-one bugs hide precisely there
- Decision tables: modelling multi-condition business rules as a truth table โ when they beat a list of test cases, and how to build one for a discount or permissions rule
- Exploratory testing: writing a time-boxed session charter, applying SFDIPOT heuristics to guide exploration, and structuring a 5-minute debrief that communicates findings clearly
// PRACTISE
- Take a registration form with 4 fields (email, password, phone number, date of birth): apply equivalence partitioning and boundary-value analysis to derive a minimal high-coverage test set โ write it out as structured test cases, not a checklist
- Write a decision table for a discount rule: '10% off if order value > ยฃ50 and the customer is a loyalty member; free shipping if order value > ยฃ100, regardless of membership' โ list every unique rule combination
- Run a 25-minute exploratory session on any public web app using a written charter before you start; debrief in 5 minutes and log your top 3 findings as structured bug reports with title, severity, priority, and steps
Deliverable
A completed decision table, a minimum valid test set from EP and BVA for the registration form, and 3 structured bug reports from your exploratory session.
Close knowledge gaps and simulate the interview under time pressure
// STUDY
- JIRA: defect workflow states, JQL filtering basics for locating open bugs by severity or assignee, Zephyr test cycles and how to report test progress to a stakeholder who asks for a status update
- SQL basics for QA: SELECT with WHERE, JOIN across two tables, GROUP BY with COUNT โ practise the queries interviewers set to verify test data after a data migration or a write-heavy feature
- Behavioural questions: a developer disputes your bug, a deadline cuts regression scope, a feature ships without sign-off โ practise structured STAR answers before the interview, not during it
- Re-read the 2 question banks that correspond to your weakest topics identified on Day 1
// PRACTISE
- Answer 10 questions aloud from the manual testing, test design, and scenario question banks โ time yourself at 90 seconds per answer and note every question where you paused
- Identify your 5 weakest answers and write a worked example for each, grounding it in a real or realistic project situation rather than an abstract definition
- Ask a colleague or friend to run a 30-minute mock: given a simple feature brief, produce structured test cases and one bug report, then debrief your exploratory approach โ replicate interview conditions without notes
Deliverable
Written answers to your 5 weakest questions, grounded in concrete examples โ plus a pass/fail verdict from your mock exercise.
Capstone: simulate the technical interview task
Mock task
Set a 40-minute timer. You receive a brief for a hotel-booking search form: destination (free text), check-in date, check-out date, number of guests (1โ8), room type (single / double / suite). Part 1 (15 minutes): apply equivalence partitioning and boundary-value analysis to derive a structured test set โ define each input class, its boundaries, and a representative test case for each. Cover valid inputs, invalid inputs, boundary values, and at least one cross-field combination (e.g. check-out before check-in). Part 2 (20 minutes): run a time-boxed exploratory session against any public web search or booking form using a written charter ('Explore the search flow, focusing on date validation, boundary inputs, and error-message quality'). Log your top 3 findings as structured bug reports. Part 3 (5 minutes): write a debrief โ what you tested, what you did NOT test, and what you would do next given more time. No notes, no reference material โ simulating interview conditions throughout.