Kanten helps QA teams turn requirements into reviewable, traceable test cases. Maintain a shared library of testing perspectives, such as boundaries, permissions, and unstable networks, and apply the relevant ones to each function. Design cases manually or with AI assistance, then review, edit, and export them. Available in English and Japanese.
Hi Product Hunt! I’m Nico, a QA engineer and the creator of Kanten.
After years in QA engineering and team leadership, one question keeps coming up: how do we know we’ve considered the right risks before writing test cases?
Kanten is inspired by viewpoint-driven testing approaches I explored in Japanese testing resources. The idea is to maintain reusable testing perspectives, such as boundary values, permissions, state transitions, and unstable networks, then apply the relevant ones to each function.
For example, “unstable network” is a shared perspective. Applied to saving a draft, it becomes concrete: if the connection drops, are the edits preserved, is the failure clear, and can the user retry?
Kanten brings this into a workflow: • Break requirements into reviewable functions. • Decide which testing perspectives apply. • Design traceable cases manually or with AI assistance. • Review, edit, and export the results.
AI drafts suggestions; QA decides what applies and what is ready.
You can try it with 100 one-time AI credits after email verification. Manual editing and export are free. English and Japanese interfaces are available.
I’d love feedback from QA engineers and leads: try one small, anonymised feature and tell me where the workflow is unclear or the coverage falls short.
Hi Product Hunt! I’m Nico, a QA engineer and the creator of Kanten.
After years in QA engineering and team leadership, one question keeps coming up: how do we know we’ve considered the right risks before writing test cases?
Kanten is inspired by viewpoint-driven testing approaches I explored in Japanese testing resources. The idea is to maintain reusable testing perspectives, such as boundary values, permissions, state transitions, and unstable networks, then apply the relevant ones to each function.
For example, “unstable network” is a shared perspective. Applied to saving a draft, it becomes concrete: if the connection drops, are the edits preserved, is the failure clear, and can the user retry?
Kanten brings this into a workflow:
• Break requirements into reviewable functions.
• Decide which testing perspectives apply.
• Design traceable cases manually or with AI assistance.
• Review, edit, and export the results.
AI drafts suggestions; QA decides what applies and what is ready.
You can try it with 100 one-time AI credits after email verification. Manual editing and export are free. English and Japanese interfaces are available.
I’d love feedback from QA engineers and leads: try one small, anonymised feature and tell me where the workflow is unclear or the coverage falls short.
How does your team review test coverage today?