Cheat sheet
ISTQB CT-GenAI Cheat Sheet
GenAI Foundations
- 12% of exam
- AI spectrum LLM building blocks LLM test capabilities Tokenization + embeddings Foundation vs reasoning Multimodal models
Prompt Engineering
- 45% of exam
- Prompt components Prompting techniques Prompting for test tasks Zero/one/few-shot System vs user prompt Meta prompting
Managing GenAI Risks
- 20% of exam
- GenAI defects Non-determinism control Attack vectors AI standards + regulations Hallucination + bias GDPR + privacy
LLM Test Infrastructure
- 13% of exam
- LLM test architecture RAG + agents Fine-tuning + LLMOps Vector database Relational vs vector Orchestration
Organizational Adoption
- 10% of exam
- Shadow AI Adoption phases GenAI strategy Selecting models Prompt patterns Evolving test roles
Quick Facts
- Exam CT-GenAI Specialist
- Credential Testing with Generative AI
- Questions 40 multiple choice
- Time 60 min (75 non-native)
- Pass 65% (26/40)
- Level Specialist
- Prerequisite ISTQB Foundation (CTFL)
- K-levels K1, K2, K3
- Weights By syllabus teaching time
Five Syllabus Chapters FO
- Foundations | Prompting | Risks | Infrastructure | Adoption
- Ch1: foundations Ch2: prompting Ch3: risks Ch4: infrastructure Ch5: adoption
Foundation vs Reasoning LLM FO
Foundation LLM
- General-purpose base
- Broad pretraining
- Needs task adaptation
Reasoning LLM
- Multi-step logic
- Chain-of-thought
- High-cognitive tasks
- Base vs deep reasoning
AI Spectrum FO
- Symbolic AI Rule-based logic systems
- Machine learning Data-driven pattern models
- Deep learning Neural network layers
- Generative AI Creates new content
- Foundation LLM General-purpose pretrained base
- Instruction-tuned LLM Follows user instructions
- Reasoning LLM Multi-step chain-of-thought
AI Spectrum FO
- Symbolic | ML | Deep | Generative
- Symbolic: rules ML: data-driven Deep: neural nets Generative: creates content
Chatbot vs LLM Application FO
AI chatbot
- Conversational UI
- Direct prompting
- Ad-hoc tasks
LLM application
- API-integrated
- Automated tasks
- Scalable, embedded
- Chat vs integrated
LLM Building Blocks FO
- Tokenization Text split into tokens
- Embedding Token as numeric vector
- Transformer Attention-based architecture
- Context window Max tokens per call
- Temperature Controls output randomness
- Non-determinism Same input, varying output
- SLM Small language model
- Multimodal model Text, image, audio
LLM Test Capabilities FO
- Requirements analysis Spot gaps, ambiguities
- Test case creation Generate cases, objectives
- Test oracle Generate expected results
- Test data Datasets, boundary values
- Automation support Generate, improve scripts
- Result analysis Summarize, classify anomalies
- Testware creation Plans, reports, docs
Six Prompt Components PR
- Role | Context | Instruction | Input | Constraints | Output
- Role: persona Context: background Instruction: task Input: data Constraints: limits Output: format
System vs User Prompt PR
System prompt
- Developer-defined
- Sets rules
- Stays constant
User prompt
- Per-interaction input
- Changes each turn
- Visible request
- Rules vs request
Prompting Technique Picker PR
- No examples needed → Zero-shot ( Simple task )
- Show one example → One-shot
- Show several examples → Few-shot ( Consistent format )
- Complex multi-step task → Prompt chaining ( Verify each step )
- Improve the prompt → Meta prompting
- Set persistent rules → System prompt
- Assign a persona → Role component
Six Prompt Components PR
- Role Persona for model
- Context Background test information
- Instruction The task directive
- Input data Stories, code, examples
- Constraints Restrictions and rules
- Output format Expected response structure
Three Core Techniques PR
- Prompt chaining | Few-shot | Meta prompting
- Chaining: step-by-step Few-shot: examples Meta: refine prompts
Zero-shot vs Few-shot PR
Zero-shot
- No examples
- Relies on pretraining
- Simple tasks
Few-shot
- Several examples
- In-context guidance
- Consistent format
- None vs examples
Test Task Picker PR
- Find test-basis gaps → Test analysis
- Create test cases → Test design
- Need expected result → Test oracle
- Generate test inputs → Test data generation
- Build test scripts → Automation support
- Summarize test results → Result analysis
Prompting Techniques PR
- Zero-shot No examples given
- One-shot Single example given
- Few-shot Several examples given
- Prompt chaining Break into verified steps
- Meta prompting LLM refines its prompts
- System prompt Developer-set behavior rules
- User prompt Per-interaction input
Prompting for Test Tasks PR
- Test analysis Conditions, coverage, defects
- Test design Cases from user stories
- Regression testing Keyword-driven scripts
- Test monitoring Metrics from test data
- Boundary value Suggested test technique
- Gherkin style Given-When-Then conditions
- Prioritization Rank by risk
NIST AI RMF RI
- Govern | Map | Measure | Manage
- Govern: culture Map: context Measure: analyze Manage: respond
Hallucination vs Reasoning Error RI
Hallucination
- Fabricated content
- Unsupported facts
- Invented criteria
Reasoning error
- Faulty logic
- Misread structure
- Wrong conclusion
- False fact vs bad logic
Risk Mitigation Picker RI
- Output looks wrong → Cross-verification ( Check sources )
- Outputs keep varying → Lower temperature ( Set random seed )
- Complex reasoning fails → Prompt chaining
- Handling sensitive data → Anonymize input ( Data minimization )
- Untrusted input data → Secure environment
- Need AI governance → NIST AI RMF
GenAI Defects RI
- Hallucination Confident but wrong output
- Reasoning error Faulty logic, inference
- Bias Skewed training-data output
- Cross-verification Check known sources
- Consistency check Outputs must agree
- Output testing Run generated testware
Non-Determinism Control RI
- Temperature Lower for consistency
- Random seed Reproducible sampling
- Complete context Reduces hallucination risk
- Divide prompts Chain into steps
- Compare models Cross-check multiple LLMs
Attack Vectors RI
- Data exfiltration Extract training data
- Request manipulation Disrupt model output
- Data poisoning Corrupt training data
- Malicious code Hidden backdoors, calls
- Data exposure Leak sensitive information
- GDPR EU data protection
AI Standards + Regulations RI
- ISO/IEC 42001 AI management system
- ISO/IEC 23053 AI systems framework
- EU AI Act Risk-tier regulation
- NIST AI RMF Govern, map, measure, manage
- CO2 emissions GenAI environmental impact
RAG vs Fine-Tuning IN
RAG
- Adds retrieved context
- Model unchanged
- Update the index
Fine-tuning
- Retrains weights
- Teaches style
- Costlier to update
- Retrieve vs retrain
Architecture Picker IN
- Need fresh enterprise data → RAG ( Vector database )
- Teach domain style → Fine-tuning ( Retrain weights )
- Multi-step automation → LLM agent ( Tool use )
- Structured test data → Relational database
- Semantic retrieval → Vector database
- Run in production → LLMOps
LLM Test Architecture IN
- Front-end Tester query interface
- Back-end Auth, retrieval, prompts
- Integrated LLM API or in-house
- Relational database Structured test data
- Vector database Semantic embedding retrieval
- Post-processing Refine raw output
Autonomous vs Semi-Autonomous IN
Autonomous agent
- Minimal oversight
- Self-directed
- Higher risk
Semi-autonomous agent
- Periodic human check
- Guards critical tasks
- Lower risk
- Independent vs supervised
RAG + Agents IN
- RAG Retrieval plus generation
- Chunking 256-512 token splits
- Grounded response Rooted in retrieval
- LLM agent Uses tools to act
- Autonomous agent Minimal human oversight
- Orchestration Multi-agent collaboration
Fine-Tuning + LLMOps IN
- Fine-tuning Retrain on domain data
- Overfitting Too specialized, brittle
- Opacity Hard to explain
- LLMOps Operate LLMs in production
- LLM-as-a-Service Hosted vendor model
- In-house model Self-hosted control
Three Adoption Phases AD
- Discovery | Initiation | Utilization
- Discovery: awareness Initiation: use cases Utilization: full integration
Adoption + Governance AD
- Shadow AI Unapproved tool use
- IP dispute Unclear licensing risk
- GenAI strategy Objectives, models, compliance
- Prompt pattern Reusable prompt template
- Quality gate Review generated testware
- Transparency Disclose GenAI use
Selecting Models AD
- Model performance Benchmark for tasks
- Fine-tuning potential Domain adaptability
- Recurring cost Licensing plus operations
- Community support Docs and troubleshooting
Common Traps
Hallucination vs reasoning error
- Hallucination = false fact ≠ Reasoning error = bad logic
System vs user prompt
- System = fixed rules ≠ User = each request
RAG vs fine-tuning
- RAG = add context ≠ Fine-tune = retrain weights
Zero vs few-shot
- Zero-shot = no examples ≠ Few-shot = several examples
Temperature effect
- Low = consistent output ≠ High = varied output
Fluent vs correct
- Fluent = reads well ≠ Correct = actually true
Relational vs vector DB
- Relational = structured data ≠ Vector = semantic retrieval
Chatbot vs application
- Chatbot = conversational ≠ Application = API-integrated
Last Minute
- 1. 40 questions, 60 minutes
- 2. 75 minutes if non-native
- 3. Pass 65%, 26 of 40
- 4. K1, K2, K3 only
- 5. CTFL Foundation required first
- 6. Five chapters; prompting is largest
- 7. Plausible output can be wrong
- 8. Hallucination = false fact
- 9. Lower temperature for consistency
- 10. RAG adds context, no retrain
- 11. Fine-tuning retrains model weights
- 12. Know NIST AI RMF functions
- 13. Anonymize sensitive data always
- 14. Lifetime certificate, no renewal
ISTQB Generative AI Testing Specialist (CT-GenAI)
- Practice Questions 100 questions Study Guide 17 topics Cheat Sheet 92 facts Flashcards 50 cards Shorts 1 short Free CE Podcast