independent qa for early-stage startups

Find the risks before your users do.

QAura is a manual-first QA audit. I test your critical flows the way real users actually break them — not the happy path a demo or an AI test suite checks — and hand you a clear, prioritized call on what's safe to ship.

one qa engineer, not an agency · fixed-price audits · 3–5 day turnaround
qaura audit run --target=checkout
auth / session persistence214ms
billing / plan upgrade flow340ms
checkout / discount code stackingP0
checkout / mobile signup188ms
profile / session expiry mid-formP1
roles / owner, admin, viewer96ms
6 checks · 4 passed · 1 failed · 1 warning → Go/No-Go: needs fixes before release
6+years_in_qa
56+projects_delivered
100%upwork_job_success
$30K+earned_on_upwork
why teams reach out

You're not ignoring QA. You're just out of hands.

Most founders I talk to care a lot about quality. They just don't have a spare person whose whole job is trying to break the product before launch.

ERROR
Bugs keep reaching production
The same kind of regression shows up release after release, because nothing's actually re-checked before ship.
WARN
No one can say "we're ready"
The honest answer before launch is usually "it seems fine," not a real check across the flows that matter.
WARN
Developers are testing their own code
It slows delivery down and still misses the blind spots a second pair of eyes would catch.
ERROR
A full-time QA hire feels too early
You need someone checking quality, but not enough to justify a permanent seat yet.
services

Start with the risk. Build from there.

The fastest way to create value is almost always an audit first. Once the real risks are visible, we can decide if you need anything beyond that.

launch-readiness-audit.yaml
service: "Launch Readiness Audit"
type: fixed_price
turnaround: "3–5 business days"
includes:
exploratory testing across critical flows
severity-tagged bug report with business impact
reusable smoke checklist
go / no-go recommendation
up to 2 fix-verification rounds
fixed price from
$1,000 – $1,500

Best for pre-launch checks and product health checks. No bug-count padding — just what's actually risky.

request an audit →

After the audit, some teams want ongoing support. I keep this part deliberately small — I'd rather do it well for a few clients than stretch thin across many, so ongoing work is scoped one-on-one after we've worked together on an audit.

foundation.yaml
tier: "QA Foundation"
# for teams that need structure before automation
setup: "$800 – $1,200"
retainer: scoped together
includes:
QA strategy and core test plan
smoke and regression checklists
bug reporting flow and templates
manual regression support pre-release
enquire
growth.yaml
tier: "QA Structure & Automation"
# for teams shipping often, ready to automate stable flows
setup: "$1,500 – $3,500"
retainer: scoped together
includes:
everything in QA Foundation
critical-flow test case library
Playwright automation for stable paths
API testing + CI/CD integration guidance
enquire
process

No complicated transformation. Just the right level of structure.

01_discovery

Understand the stakes

We review your product, release cadence, and what a failed launch would actually cost you.

02_audit

Find the real risks

I test critical flows, edge cases, and failure paths — the ones that don't show up in a demo.

03_decide

Get a clear call

Structured report, reusable checklist, and a straight Go / No-Go recommendation.

04_support

Stay clean post-launch

If it makes sense, I stay involved on a startup-friendly basis as the product evolves.

faq

Common questions.

qaura --help
automation-or-manual

Early-stage startups usually benefit most from a strong manual process first: critical-flow coverage, smoke checklists, and better release decisions. Automation earns its place once your core flows are stable enough to be worth maintaining.

audit-timeline

Most audits are delivered in around 3–5 business days, depending on product size, access, and how many flows need covering.

deliverables

A structured bug report with severity, a reusable smoke checklist, a release-readiness summary, and a clear recommendation on whether the product is ready to ship.

audit-only

Yes, the audit stands on its own. Some teams stop there; others continue with ongoing support afterward.

tooling

Playwright for automation, Postman for API testing, Jira or Linear for issue tracking, Notion or Confluence for docs, and GitHub Actions for CI/CD. I can adapt to your existing stack.

non-technical-founders

Yes. You don't need to know testing terminology — I keep it plain: here's the risk, here's what needs to happen next.

preparing a release?

Find the risks before your users do.

Start with an independent QA audit and leave with a clearer decision, a prioritized issue list, and fewer unknowns.

book a free call →
contact

Tell me what you're shipping.

Share the product, the release, and where quality feels uncertain. I'll tell you honestly whether an audit, ongoing support, or a lighter review makes sense.

new-lead.form
name:
email:
company:
need:
details: