About
Senior QA/SDET consulting without agency layers
TestVector is a solo consultancy. You work directly with the person reviewing the system, shaping the strategy, building the automation, and handing off the work.
Credibility
Why I can help
I have spent 6+ years testing complex, data-heavy software systems where correctness depends on more than clicking through the UI. My work has covered test strategy, automation architecture, staging environments, backend validation, database checks, file/output validation, CI workflows, and release verification for systems where missed defects can create serious downstream problems.
Working style
- Direct access to the person doing the work
- Practical recommendations, not bloated QA process
- Risk-first test planning
- Automation only where it creates useful signal
- Clear documentation and handoff
- Comfortable working across UI, API, database, files, and CI
- Skeptical of test-count theater
Technical range
Technical range
Playwright UI automation, API verification, SQL/database validation, file and report validation, CI/CD test execution, Allure reporting, synthetic test data, test suite cleanup, QA strategy, and release-risk review.
Who I work with
Best fit teams have release risk their current tests do not explain.
I am most useful when the problem is not simply test coverage volume. The better fit is a team that needs sharper engineering signal: what the system supports, where failure would hurt, and which blind spots are creating false confidence.
- SaaS teams scaling faster than their QA maturity
- engineering teams with noisy CI and low release confidence
- teams relying on shallow UI-only automation
- companies with critical backend, data, reporting, or output workflows
- organizations where failures are expensive or difficult to detect
- teams that already have tests, but still do not trust releases
- startups moving from reactive QA to engineering-grade verification
Good fit
Good fit
- Your team has tests but does not fully trust releases.
- Regression takes too long or depends too heavily on manual effort.
- Your product has important backend/data/output behavior.
- Your CI/test suite is noisy, flaky, or ignored.
- You need senior QA judgment, but not a full agency.
- You want practical implementation, not theoretical QA consulting.
Boundaries
Not a fit
- You only want someone to execute a large checklist without context.
- You measure QA value mainly by number of test cases.
- You want the cheapest possible testing labor.
- You are not willing to clarify expected behavior or system risk.
- You want automation volume without maintenance responsibility.