* Testing knowledge scatters and goes stale. It's spread across wikis, tickets, spreadsheets and people's heads, and once there's no single maintained source, it drifts out of date or quietly gets lost.
* It leaves when people leave. Integration knowledge especially — how systems actually talk to each other — often lives only in someone's memory until they're gone.
* Every team grows its own framework. They drift out of sync with each other, and even across test levels inside one team, so tests can't easily be shared or trusted between them.
* The framework eats the time meant for testing. So much effort goes into the plumbing — test data, environments, runtime, reporting, traceability — that less is left for the questions testing is actually there to answer.
* The tech is burying the intent. Shift-left and self-contained, containerised tests were real progress — but each test now carries so much machinery (standing up local infra, seeding its own data) that it's easy to lose sight of what a test is actually checking, and why it's there at all.
I built syz to fix them. The idea: you capture your testing knowledge once, in a defined standard — integration points, test data, environment data, requirements — and syz keeps the tests, runtime, reports and requirements traceability (RTM) aligned to it. The knowledge base becomes the source of truth, and the framework maintains itself against it — so every test stays tied to the reason it exists, not just the machinery that runs it. Because the standard is shared, tests stay consistent across teams and test levels, and the knowledge stays put even when people move on.
These are solvable problems, and syz cli is how I'm solving them. I'd back it in front of any testing team — including yours. Tell me where it holds and where it doesn't.