Olena Teslenko
Co-founder · QA consulting
Olena helps teams improve test strategy, QA processes, and collaboration between manual and automated testing. She also shares practical experience through QA community talks.
A QA audit for clearer release decisions.
In 2–3 weeks, QRely reviews how quality work, release decisions, and ownership fit together—then gives your team prioritized, actionable improvements.
Tell us about your team. We’ll reply by email to arrange a 30-minute conversation.
QRelyExample audit finding
- Release checklist
- Pipeline rules
- Release notes
Finding
Release criteria differ across teams
Next action
Agree a shared criterion and decision owner
When releases depend on workarounds, the risk is hard to see.
We connect the everyday QA work to the decisions it is meant to support, so the team can discuss gaps with evidence.
Common release problemsWhat an audit can surface
Slow feedback
Useful test results arrive after a change is already expensive to fix.
Unclear gates
Teams use different go/no-go criteria, so releases depend on individual judgment.
Fragmented ownership
Quality decisions cross engineering, product, and QA without one accountable owner.
Unmapped risk
Known gaps compete for attention without evidence connecting them to the next action.
Finding: inconsistent release criteria
Reviewed: release checklist, pipeline rules, release notes
Why it matters: teams can approve the same release on different grounds
Next steps
- Agree the release criterion
- Name the decision owner
- Review the rule after the next release
A QA audit for decisions your team can stand behind.
Over 2–3 weeks, we review your release path, quality practices, and ownership. You receive a clear view of risk and the sequence of work to address it.
- Current setup
- Release risks
- Improvement plan
- Leadership summary
A closer look at what holds your releases back.
We agree the people, artefacts, and access boundaries first. Then we turn delivery evidence into findings that engineering, product, and QA can discuss together.
View an illustrative findingExample evidence reviewQRely
Release checklist
- Critical user flow checked
- Open defects reviewed
- Decision owner recorded
Pipeline rules
- Build completes
- Automated tests pass
- Critical user flow: not specified
Finding
The checklist and release gate do not use the same criteria
Next action
Agree which checks must block a release and who can approve exceptions
The founders lead the work.
QRely is a consulting practice led directly by its cofounders.
Vladyslav Kachuk
Co-founder · Quality & Release Engineering
Vladyslav works across QA leadership, release operations, distributed and IoT systems, and practical AI workflow tooling.
Before we start, a few useful answers.
What happens during a QA maturity audit?
We review testing practices, release criteria, and responsibilities. You receive an assessment of the current setup, a map of risks, a prioritized improvement plan, and findings for leadership.
Is this consulting or QA outsourcing?
It is consulting. QRely examines how your team makes quality and release decisions, then gives leadership a decision baseline and prioritized plan. We do not replace your delivery team or supply ongoing test execution as part of the audit.
Why use an external audit?
An external review creates a shared, independent view across engineering, product, and QA. It helps leadership compare existing assumptions with the evidence used in real release decisions.
How much team time and evidence access do you need?
We agree the working plan first. It identifies the people, process context, and delivery evidence needed for your scope, so your team can review the request before the audit begins.
How do you handle sensitive evidence?
Evidence boundaries are agreed before review, and requests are limited to what the audit needs. Confidentiality requirements are discussed during scoping so your team can decide what can be shared.
How do duration, scope, and pricing work?
A typical audit runs over 2–3 weeks. Scope and pricing are proposed after the first conversation because they depend on your delivery system, team availability, and the evidence included in the review.
Who leads the engagement?
Olena Teslenko and Vladyslav Kachuk lead QRely engagements directly. Before work begins, the working plan confirms participation, review points, and who receives the findings.
What happens after the findings are delivered?
You can use the findings internally as a decision baseline, or continue with optional implementation support where it is useful.
Tell us what is difficult about your releases.
Send a request with a little context about your team and the release decisions you want to improve.
- Tell us about your team and release context.
- We will reply by email to arrange a 30-minute conversation.
- If the form does not work, write to contact@qrely.info.