That wasn’t just a tooling failure. It was a team design failure.
Agentic AI systems challenge everything we thought we knew about testing:
And yet many QA orgs still look the same:
These roles are essential but no longer sufficient.
To test systems that reason and adapt, you need roles that do more than validate — they investigate, interpret, and intervene.
An enterprise team released a generative AI document assistant. Tests passed. Behavior was “acceptable."
But two weeks later, a customer uploaded a government form and the assistant rewrote it using phrasing that accidentally voided legal protections.
No test caught it. No one flagged it. Why? Because no one on the QA team knew how to evaluate legal risk or semantic drift in generated content.
The team tested for correctness. What they needed was someone who could test consequences.
Here’s a breakdown of the hybrid roles and skill shifts starting to appear in forward-looking QA teams:
Think: QA meets cognitive science
Real Impact:
Flags goal misalignment before it becomes a customer incident
Think: Test Designer meets Interaction Architect
Real Impact:
Builds precision test harnesses for unpredictable systems
Think: QA meets forensic analyst
Real Impact:
Prevents long-term memory bugs that break behavior weeks later
Think: Human-in-the-Loop with guardrail authority
Real Impact:
Catches unsafe responses automation would greenlight
Think: Test Lead evolved
Real Impact:
Turns a QA team into an agentic testing organization
Traditional Skill |
Modern Equivalent |
Writing test cases |
Designing behavioral probes & fuzzy scenarios |
Selenium scripting |
Reasoning trace analysis & prompt injection |
Defect triage |
Drift detection, escalation modeling |
Coverage analysis |
Cognitive surface mapping (goals, tools, memory) |
Manual verification |
HITL intervention and qualitative flagging |
No one needs to be all of these.
But every QA org needs a blend.
This is not about replacing your testers.
It’s about:
One of the best testers we worked with never learned Python — but she could instantly spot a hallucinated policy or tone mismatch in generated outputs.
That’s a superpower in agentic testing.
You just need to name it and build around it.
Here’s how to make progress now without waiting for a reorg or budget cycle.
Ask yourself:
Map those instincts to your new needs:
You may already have the right people — they just need a new lens on their role.
Pick 2–3 actual AI outputs your team has worked with — from a chatbot, summarizer, AI test script generator, etc.
In a 30–45 min session:
This helps your team see how their existing skills map to a hybrid future — and sparks discussion without slides or formal training.
Set up a 1-hour pilot review session:
Use prompts that are ambiguous, multi-step, or emotionally loaded.
You’re not just checking if the AI worked — you’re checking if the behavior was appropriate. This pairing makes that distinction clear.
You don’t need a full reorg. Try these lightweight steps:
By giving these responsibilities names, you’re making the invisible visible — and giving people permission to grow into new roles.
Agentic systems are changing what it means to “test software.” They need oversight, not just automation. Interpretation, not just validation.
The test teams that thrive in this new era won’t be the ones with the most scripts.
They’ll be the ones that know how to test a system that thinks.
Blog 9 – “When Tests Fail: Debugging Agentic Behavior”
We’ll dive into how to trace, explain, and correct failures in agentic systems even when the output looks fine.