Resources · 7 assets · Updated April 2026

An open library for QA leaders.

Whitepapers, checklists, guidebooks, and templates from real client engagements. Free, gated only by an email so we can send the file. No drip funnel, no sales calendar.

Featured Whitepaper

A comprehensive analysis of how top engineering teams are reducing test flakiness by 40% while accelerating CI/CD pipelines. Based on data from 500+ enterprise deployments.

  • Architectural patterns for robust test suites.
  • Metrics for evaluating test ROI.
  • Benchmark data across 12 industries.

Get on the notify list

Drop your corporate email and we'll send the 45-page PDF the moment it ships.

Strictly no spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Guidebook

A tactical, step-by-step guide for engineering teams moving legacy Selenium test suites to modern Playwright architecture.

Read the brief →
Whitepaper

Strategies for engineering leaders to shift testing accountability left and foster a mindset of quality across cross-functional teams.

Read the brief →
Checklist

Essential pre-audit tasks and documentation requirements to prepare your infrastructure for compliance certifications (SOC2 / ISO).

Read the brief →

Who downloads these

QA leaders facing a specific decision this quarter.

Each asset was originally built for a real client engagement. Here are three of the conversations that produced the file you're about to download.

01
“I need a 90-day plan I can hand to my CTO before next quarter's planning.”
. SarahQA Director at

Series-B fintech · ~50 engineers

Reach for the 90-Day Plan template + the Boss Justification memo. Both written for that exact conversation.

02
“We're about to spend serious money on an AI testing tool. I'd like a sanity check.”
. MarcusHead of Quality at

Healthcare SaaS · 120 engineers

Run the AI Readiness Assessment first. You'll know whether the tool will compound or get added to the stack.

03
“Our regression suite costs us a full engineer-week of CI minutes per sprint.”
. PriyaQA Director at

E-commerce platform · 200+ engineers

Start with the Flaky Test Cost Calculator, then the Regression Audit worksheet. The numbers come fast.

Names + companies anonymized at the speakers' request.

Provenance

These aren't marketing artifacts. They're the working files Loop runs.

Each resource started inside a paying engagement. We publish them because the methodology is more valuable when more teams use it. And because we'd rather earn your trust before you spend money with us.

01

Inside the audit

Every QA Leverage Review runs the High-Leverage Work Map and the Access & Permissions Gap Audit. The worksheets here are the same ones we use with paying clients.

See the audit brief
02

Inside the workshop

Pre-engagement diagnosis for Quality Strategy & Leadership Alignment asks teams to fill out the Ownership Charter draft before the live session. Attached templates accelerate that.

See the workshop
03

Inside the sprint

The Quality Intelligence dashboard ships first thing in week one of the Quality Transformation Sprint. The starter dashboard here is the seed of that.

See the sprint

Watch · Companion videos

Talks that go with the templates

Subscribe on YouTube · @benfellows-dev
Set Up Policy as Code in 1 Hour (Control AI Code Fast)

Apr 28, 2026

Set Up Policy as Code in 1 Hour (Control AI Code Fast)

If you want to start controlling AI-generated code today, this is the simplest way I’ve found to do it. In the previous videos, I talked about why agentic development breaks at scale and introduced the concept of policy as code as a way to fix it. In this video, I’m showing how to actually get started. The idea is straightforward. Instead of relying only on prompts, rules, or memory to guide AI, you introduce a deterministic layer that scans your codebase and flags violations. Think of it as a much more comprehensive, fully customizable linting system that works alongside tools like Claude. What surprised me is how easy it is to get a first version working. In this walkthrough, I show how you can go from zero to a basic policy as code setup in a very short amount of time. We start by generating a small set of rules, wire up a simple scanner, and immediately run it against a real codebase. Even with a basic setup, you’ll start catching issues and inconsistencies right away. This is not the full system I use in production. At scale, this turns into hundreds or even thousands of rules, with more advanced concepts like evidence layers, caching, and reporting. But the goal of this video is to show that you don’t need any of that to begin. If you’re using AI to write code and you’re starting to see drift, inconsistency, or quality issues over time, this is a practical way to start putting guardrails in place. Over time, what I’ve found is that as you add more rules, the amount of drift drops significantly, and the system becomes more reliable without slowing development down. If you haven’t watched the earlier videos in this series, I’d recommend starting with those for more context on why this approach exists and how it fits into a larger agentic workflow. If you try this yourself, I’d be interested to hear what kinds of rules you end up writing and what it catches in your codebase.

Watch on YouTube →
I Tried Building with Agentic Factories. They Failed. Here’s What Worked Instead.

Apr 27, 2026

I Tried Building with Agentic Factories. They Failed. Here’s What Worked Instead.

I spent time building with “agentic factories” - multi-agent pipelines that promise fully autonomous workflows. On paper, they look like the future. In practice, they broke down in ways that matter: reliability, coordination, and real-world constraints. In this video, I break down where these systems failed, why they fail structurally, and what actually worked instead in production. If you're building with AI agents, this will save you time (and probably some pain).

Watch on YouTube →
How We Use Policy as Code to Control Claude and AI Agents

Apr 24, 2026

How We Use Policy as Code to Control Claude and AI Agents

Claude and other AI agents are incredibly good at writing code. The problem is they don’t stay consistent over time. In the first few iterations, everything looks great. Output is fast, patterns are mostly correct, and it feels like you’ve unlocked a new level of development speed. But as the codebase grows, small inconsistencies start to compound. Patterns drift, structure degrades, and eventually the system becomes harder to maintain than it was before. That’s the problem this video is about. In this walkthrough, I break down how we use a concept called policy as code to control AI-generated code in real systems. Instead of relying only on prompts, rules files, or memory, we introduce a deterministic layer that enforces how code is allowed to be written. Every time an agent makes changes, those changes are checked against a large set of rules. If something doesn’t match the expected patterns, it fails. The agent has to fix it before moving forward. This ends up acting like a much more comprehensive version of linting, but tailored specifically to your architecture, your patterns, and your codebase. The result is that we’re able to keep the speed benefits of AI while dramatically reducing drift and long-term degradation. This video focuses on how the system works in practice. What kinds of rules we write, how they’re structured, and how they integrate into an agentic workflow using tools like Claude. If you’re experimenting with AI coding and running into issues with inconsistency or quality over time, this is one approach that has worked well for us. I’ll also be doing follow-up videos on how to implement this from scratch and how it fits into larger agentic pipeline systems. If you’ve tried something similar or have different approaches to controlling AI-generated code, I’d be interested to hear about it.

Watch on YouTube →

Bundle

Want all of them in one PDF?

The complete Loop bundle is every whitepaper, every checklist, every template. One zip, one email.

Template

90-Day QA Leverage Plan

Coming soon