“Our test plan was airtight. Then the AI rewrote its own path.”
You didn’t miss a requirement. You just built a strategy for the wrong kind of system.
Why you need a new test strategy
For decades, software QA strategy was about:
- Reviewing requirements
- Designing test cases
- Validating outputs
- Reporting pass/fail
- Releasing with confidence
That worked when systems were rule-based and predictable.
Agentic AI systems are different:
- They reason
- They choose their own paths
- They adapt over time
- They behave differently even with the same input
So instead of “Did we test all the requirements?” You now ask:
“Did we test how the system thinks, evolves, and fails under pressure?”
What makes a good QA plan for agentic systems?
A solid strategy for testing agentic AI must do 3 things:
- Map the system’s decision space
- Probe for unacceptable behavior, not just missing features
- Monitor for drift, degradation, and emergent risk over time
Here’s what that looks like in practice.
1. Define behavioral test objectives
Start by reframing what you're trying to validate. You’re not just confirming outcomes — you're stress-testing intent and reasoning.
Replace:
“The AI should recommend the right account type.”
With:
“The AI should interpret ambiguous financial goals safely, align with policy, and avoid recommending risky products.”
This means your test objectives are now:
- Is the behavior goal-aligned?
- Is it safe and policy-compliant?
- Is it reasoned through valid steps?
- Does it fail safely when unsure?
2. Use a layered test lifecycle
Here’s a practical lifecycle you can adopt:
Pre-testing: Risk & goal mapping
- Identify high-risk decisions (e.g. financial, legal, ethical)
- Document ambiguous user goals
- List tools/memory/agents involved
Test design phase
- Build scenario-based probes, not step-by-step cases
- Incorporate fuzzy inputs, edge prompts, and constraint injections
- Define “acceptable boundaries” — not just pass/fail
Execution phase
- Run scenario replays to detect drift
- Log reasoning traces and tool usage
- Flag behavior that deviates from past known-good responses
Human-in-the-loop review
- Manually review:
- High-stakes decisions
- Unusual reasoning chains
- First-time outputs
- Feedback loops improve test coverage and prompt tuning
Post-test monitoring
- Use observability tools to watch live behavior
- Alert on novel or out-of-policy behavior
- Feed flagged behaviors back into the test suite
Redefine readiness and confidence
You can’t rely on “100% test case pass rate” anymore. Instead, your QA plan should track:
|
Traditional Metric
|
Agentic Equivalent
|
|
% tests passed
|
% scenarios within behavior boundaries
|
|
Code coverage
|
Reasoning path & goal alignment coverage
|
|
Test case count
|
Behavioral probes + drift checks executed
|
|
Defect count
|
Unsafe or misaligned behaviors flagged
|
Confidence now comes from coverage of decision space, auditability of reasoning, and stability over time.
Real-world example: Strategic drift
A banking chatbot passed all its test cases. But in prod, it started recommending investment products to users asking for low-risk savings options.
No code changed. No APIs failed.
It had seen too many recent examples of aggressive users and drifted toward recommending higher-yield options.
No one caught it — because the test strategy stopped at output validation. No behavior drift analysis. No goal alignment checks.
A Sample Strategy Blueprint
Here’s a lightweight structure you can plug into your QA plan:
|
Section
|
Description
|
|
System Overview
|
Agent capabilities, tools, memory
|
|
Risk Map
|
What behaviors are high-risk or regulated
|
|
Behavioral Objectives
|
What “good” looks like
|
|
Test Techniques
|
Replay, prompting, fuzzing, HITL
|
|
Quality Gates
|
Alignment thresholds, escalation rules
|
|
Monitoring Plan
|
Post-deploy drift and anomaly detection
|
What you can do this week
- Choose one AI-powered workflow in your org
- Write 3 test objectives focused on reasoning, not outcomes
- Add a drift replay check to your next test cycle
- Create a human review checkpoint for high-risk decisions
Even small shifts in your plan can prevent massive downstream failures.
Final thought
Agentic AI systems don’t need more checklists. They need strategies that understand behavior, anticipate risk, and adapt over time.
In the age of autonomous software, your QA plan isn’t a list of test cases.
It’s a living system that watches how another system thinks.
Coming next:
Blog 8: “The Agentic AI Test Team: Roles, Skills, and Future of QA Work”
We’ll explore how QA teams must evolve — and what roles will define testing in the AI era.
.svg)
