Manual Testing Guide - ResponsePersonalityEnhancer

Quick Validation (5 minutes)

Infrastructure Verification

Ports (VERIFIED):

• Web UI: http://localhost:8081
• API Backend: http://localhost:8001

API Testing

# Test personality profile endpoint
curl -X GET "http://localhost:8001/api/personality/profile/default" | jq '.'

# Test enhanced standup
curl -X GET "http://localhost:8001/api/standup?personality=true&format=human-readable" | jq '.'

# Test API health
curl -X GET "http://localhost:8001/health"

Expected API Results:

• Profile endpoint returns JSON with warmth_level, confidence_style, action_orientation
• Enhanced standup includes personality-enhanced language
• Health endpoint confirms system operational

Web UI Testing

1. Personality Preferences: http://localhost:8081/personality-preferences
   • Verify all controls functional (sliders, dropdowns)
   • Test configuration changes save properly
   • Check live preview updates (if functional)
2. Standup Interface: http://localhost:8081/standup
   • Click “Generate Standup” button
   • Verify personality enhancement in output
   • Check for confidence indicators and warmth level
   • Compare with/without personality enhancement
3. Main Chat Interface: http://localhost:8081/
   • Test general chat functionality
   • Verify personality enhancement in responses
   • Check response consistency

Configuration Testing

File: config/PIPER.user.md

Test configuration override:

personality:
  profile:
    warmth_level: 0.9
    confidence_style: "numeric"
    action_orientation: "high"
    technical_depth: "detailed"

Validation Steps:

1. Modify settings in PIPER.user.md
2. Restart system if needed
3. Verify enhanced responses reflect changes
4. Test API endpoint returns updated configuration

Comprehensive Testing Scenarios

Scenario 1: Default Personality Experience

Objective: Validate new users get appropriate personality enhancement

Configuration:

personality:
  profile:
    warmth_level: 0.7
    confidence_style: "contextual"
    action_orientation: "high"

Test Steps:

1. Navigate to http://localhost:8081/standup
2. Generate standup with default settings
3. Navigate to http://localhost:8081/personality-preferences
4. Verify default values displayed correctly

Expected Results:

• Responses feel warm but professional
• Include contextual confidence indicators like “(based on recent patterns)”
• Provide actionable guidance with phrases like “Here’s what I recommend:”
• Should NOT feel robotic or overly formal

Validation Questions:

• Does the personality feel natural and helpful?
• Are confidence indicators informative without being distracting?
• Do responses encourage appropriate next steps?

Scenario 2: High Warmth Configuration

Objective: Test maximum warmth personality setting

Configuration:

personality:
  profile:
    warmth_level: 0.9
    confidence_style: "hidden"
    action_orientation: "medium"

Test Steps:

1. Update configuration to high warmth
2. Test multiple response types (standup, chat, API calls)
3. Compare with default warmth responses

Expected Results:

• Responses noticeably warmer with enthusiastic language
• Include words like “Perfect!”, “Excellent!”, “Great!”
• NO confidence indicators shown (hidden style)
• Moderate actionable guidance

Validation Questions:

• Is warmth increase noticeable but not overwhelming?
• Are confidence indicators properly hidden?
• Does personality feel consistent across interfaces?

Scenario 3: Professional/Minimal Personality

Objective: Test low-warmth, professional personality

Configuration:

personality:
  profile:
    warmth_level: 0.0
    confidence_style: "numeric"
    action_orientation: "low"

Test Steps:

1. Configure for minimal personality
2. Generate multiple response types
3. Verify professional tone maintained

Expected Results:

• Responses professional and direct
• Confidence shows as percentages (e.g., “85% confident”)
• Minimal actionable guidance
• Competent but not warm tone

Validation Questions:

• Does professional tone feel appropriate for business use?
• Are numeric confidence indicators clear and useful?
• Is reduced guidance still sufficient for productivity?

Scenario 4: Error Handling and Edge Cases

Objective: Validate graceful degradation in error scenarios

Test Cases:

1. Invalid Configuration:

   personality:
     profile:
       warmth_level: 5.0  # Invalid (>1.0)
       confidence_style: "invalid_style"
   

2. Empty/Corrupted Configuration File
3. API Timeout Simulation (if possible)
4. Database Connection Issues (if testable)

Expected Results:

• System should not crash
• Fall back to default personality gracefully
• Log warnings appropriately
• User experience remains functional

Validation Questions:

• Does system handle invalid configurations gracefully?
• Is fallback behavior transparent to user?
• Are error messages helpful rather than technical?

Scenario 5: Performance and Responsiveness

Objective: Validate personality enhancement doesn’t slow system

Test Steps:

1. Time multiple operations with personality enabled
2. Compare response times with/without enhancement
3. Test under moderate load (multiple rapid requests)

Performance Benchmarks:

• API responses: <200ms total
• Web UI interactions: <2 seconds
• Personality enhancement overhead: <70ms

Expected Results:

• Commands complete in normal timeframes
• No noticeable delay from personality processing
• System feels responsive

Validation Questions:

• Are response times acceptable for daily use?
• Is there noticeable performance impact?
• Does system feel sluggish or responsive?

Scenario 6: Cross-Interface Consistency

Objective: Ensure personality works consistently across all interfaces

Test Matrix: | Interface | Test Action | Personality Validation | |———–|————-|———————-| | Web UI | Generate standup | Check warmth/confidence | | API | GET /api/standup | Verify enhancement applied | | Chat | General query | Consistent personality | | Config | Update PIPER.user.md | Changes reflected |

Expected Results:

• Same personality settings produce consistent tone across interfaces
• Configuration changes affect all interfaces uniformly
• No interface-specific personality variations

Expected Enhancement Examples

Default Personality (warmth: 0.7, confidence: contextual)

• Input: “Task completed successfully”
• Expected: “Task completed successfully (based on recent patterns)—ready for the next step!”

High Warmth (warmth: 0.9, confidence: hidden)

• Input: “Analysis complete”
• Expected: “Perfect! Analysis complete—here’s what I found!”

Professional (warmth: 0.0, confidence: numeric)

• Input: “Found 5 issues”
• Expected: “Found 5 issues (85% confident)”

Error Scenarios

• Input: “Error: Connection failed”
• Expected: “Error: Connection failed (based on recent patterns) Let me try a different approach.”

Red Flags - Stop Testing If You See

Critical Issues (Stop Immediately)

• System crashes or hangs
• Completely inappropriate personality (unprofessional language)
• Significant performance degradation (>5 second delays)
• Existing functionality completely broken
• Personality enhancement producing gibberish or corrupted text
• Security concerns (inappropriate data exposure)

Quality Issues (Note and Continue)

• Personality not quite matching configuration
• Minor inconsistencies in tone
• Confidence indicators not perfectly calibrated
• Some commands not showing personality enhancement
• Minor performance slowdowns (<2 seconds)

Testing Results Template

Quick Validation Results

• API endpoints responding: ✅ / ⚠️ / ❌
• Web UI personality preferences: ✅ / ⚠️ / ❌
• Configuration file changes work: ✅ / ⚠️ / ❌
• Performance acceptable: ✅ / ⚠️ / ❌

Scenario Results

Scenario 1: Default Personality

• Natural and helpful personality: ✅ / ⚠️ / ❌
• Appropriate warmth level: ✅ / ⚠️ / ❌
• Contextual confidence indicators: ✅ / ⚠️ / ❌
• Actionable guidance: ✅ / ⚠️ / ❌
• Notes: _______

Scenario 2: High Warmth

• Warmth increase noticeable: ✅ / ⚠️ / ❌
• Confidence indicators hidden: ✅ / ⚠️ / ❌
• Consistent personality: ✅ / ⚠️ / ❌
• Notes: _______

Scenario 3: Professional Mode

• Professional tone appropriate: ✅ / ⚠️ / ❌
• Numeric confidence clear: ✅ / ⚠️ / ❌
• Reduced guidance sufficient: ✅ / ⚠️ / ❌
• Notes: _______

Scenario 4: Error Handling

• No system crashes: ✅ / ⚠️ / ❌
• Graceful fallback: ✅ / ⚠️ / ❌
• User experience maintained: ✅ / ⚠️ / ❌
• Notes: _______

Scenario 5: Performance

• Response times acceptable: ✅ / ⚠️ / ❌
• No noticeable delays: ✅ / ⚠️ / ❌
• System feels responsive: ✅ / ⚠️ / ❌
• Notes: _______

Scenario 6: Cross-Interface Consistency

• Web UI consistent: ✅ / ⚠️ / ❌
• API consistent: ✅ / ⚠️ / ❌
• Configuration changes reflected: ✅ / ⚠️ / ❌
• Notes: _______

Success Criteria for Production Approval

Must Have (Blocking Issues)

• System functional and stable
• Personality enhancement working as designed
• No significant performance regression
• Error handling graceful and transparent
• All interfaces accessible on correct ports

Should Have (Quality Issues)

• Natural and appropriate personality expression
• Configuration changes properly reflected
• Consistent experience across interfaces
• Enhanced user engagement and actionability

Nice to Have (Enhancement Opportunities)

• Perfect personality calibration
• Seamless integration feeling
• Exceptional user experience quality
• Clear value demonstration

Troubleshooting

Common Issues

1. “Failed to fetch” errors: Check API server running on port 8001
2. Personality not changing: Verify configuration file syntax and restart
3. Web UI not loading: Confirm web server on port 8081
4. No personality enhancement: Check personality service integration

Support Contacts

• Technical Issues: Code Agent for backend fixes
• UX Issues: Cursor Agent for interface improvements
• Architecture Questions: Chief Architect for design decisions

Testing Guide Version: 1.0 Last Updated: September 11, 2025 Infrastructure: Web UI (8081), API (8001) Status: Ready for Production Testing