Manual QA for Property SaaS
Budget: $10 – $20 NZD
Overview
We are looking for a user-interface tester with the initiative to take a written brief describing how a feature is intended to behave and independently turn it into their own test plan — identifying the scenarios, edge cases, and checks that confirm the application works as it should.
This is a functional, interface-focused role. You will succeed here on the strength of your testing instincts and attention to detail. No coding, database, or technical development background is required. What matters is how you think: when you read a feature description, we want your first instinct to be "here are the ways this could behave unexpectedly, and here is how I would confirm each one."
Briefs will be provided to you from two sources: written specifications we prepare, and specifications produced with AI tools such as Claude and Cursor. We are looking for someone comfortable receiving and working from briefs in that form.
What the role involves
Taking a plain-English brief for a feature or module and authoring your own test scenarios — covering the expected path, edge cases, boundary conditions, and likely failure points.
Testing through the interface as a user would experience it, confirming the application behaves correctly across each scenario. As this is a finance application, we place particular value on confirming that displayed figures respond correctly as inputs and settings are changed.
Reporting findings with clear evidence — screenshots and precise, repeatable reproduction steps.
Reporting each scenario against defined verdict states — PASS / PARTIAL / FAIL / MISSING / UNCERTAIN — so the outcome of every check is unambiguous. An honest "UNCERTAIN" is genuinely valued here.
Raising any ambiguity, contradiction, or scope question in a brief early.
What we are looking for
A demonstrated ability to design test cases from a written specification independently. This is the heart of the role, and the quality we will focus on most.
Strong testing fundamentals: boundary analysis, edge-case identification, and regression awareness.
A sharp eye for detail and disciplined, evidence-based reporting.
A reliable, self-directed approach — someone who can own a test cycle from start to finish with minimal supervision.
Comfort working from briefs that are produced with AI tools.
Desirable
Experience with multi-tenant testing — confirming that data and access remain correctly separated between different accounts and users. This would be particularly useful for us.
Exposure to property development, construction, real estate, or accounting contexts, so the meaning behind a figure is understood. This is a welcome bonus rather than a requirement.
How we work
Tooling: Claude and Cursor are central to how briefs are prepared. You will work from the specifications these produce.
Approach: Direct, focused, and decisive. Scope is defined per cycle, and we appreciate testers who respect that scope and flag anything that falls outside it.
Deliverable-based: We pay for outcomes — a completed, well-evidenced test cycle against an agreed module — rather than hours worked.
We are looking for a user-interface tester with the initiative to take a written brief describing how a feature is intended to behave and independently turn it into their own test plan — identifying the scenarios, edge cases, and checks that confirm the application works as it should.
This is a functional, interface-focused role. You will succeed here on the strength of your testing instincts and attention to detail. No coding, database, or technical development background is required. What matters is how you think: when you read a feature description, we want your first instinct to be "here are the ways this could behave unexpectedly, and here is how I would confirm each one."
Briefs will be provided to you from two sources: written specifications we prepare, and specifications produced with AI tools such as Claude and Cursor. We are looking for someone comfortable receiving and working from briefs in that form.
What the role involves
Taking a plain-English brief for a feature or module and authoring your own test scenarios — covering the expected path, edge cases, boundary conditions, and likely failure points.
Testing through the interface as a user would experience it, confirming the application behaves correctly across each scenario. As this is a finance application, we place particular value on confirming that displayed figures respond correctly as inputs and settings are changed.
Reporting findings with clear evidence — screenshots and precise, repeatable reproduction steps.
Reporting each scenario against defined verdict states — PASS / PARTIAL / FAIL / MISSING / UNCERTAIN — so the outcome of every check is unambiguous. An honest "UNCERTAIN" is genuinely valued here.
Raising any ambiguity, contradiction, or scope question in a brief early.
What we are looking for
A demonstrated ability to design test cases from a written specification independently. This is the heart of the role, and the quality we will focus on most.
Strong testing fundamentals: boundary analysis, edge-case identification, and regression awareness.
A sharp eye for detail and disciplined, evidence-based reporting.
A reliable, self-directed approach — someone who can own a test cycle from start to finish with minimal supervision.
Comfort working from briefs that are produced with AI tools.
Desirable
Experience with multi-tenant testing — confirming that data and access remain correctly separated between different accounts and users. This would be particularly useful for us.
Exposure to property development, construction, real estate, or accounting contexts, so the meaning behind a figure is understood. This is a welcome bonus rather than a requirement.
How we work
Tooling: Claude and Cursor are central to how briefs are prepared. You will work from the specifications these produce.
Approach: Direct, focused, and decisive. Scope is defined per cycle, and we appreciate testers who respect that scope and flag anything that falls outside it.
Deliverable-based: We pay for outcomes — a completed, well-evidenced test cycle against an agreed module — rather than hours worked.