Currently, there is no better way to introduce a new passthrough suite than to copy/paste an existing one and see what fails as it burns in. Could we consider creating "common" yml files that contain settings expected to apply in a specific scenario? For example, "kill_primary" suites should all use the "fail_unclean_shutdown_incompatible_commands.js" library and exclude tests that rely on fastcount. It can be easy to miss one of these requirements if you're creating a new passthrough that exhibits multiple behaviors (kill_primary + retryable_writes). It would be simpler to create more complicated suites if we had "building block" yml files. I also spoke to Raiden Worley about this and there's seems to be a longer term discussion in INIT-57 to improve the configuration scheme of tests, but they're not that modular right now. We also spoke about more prolific test-based tagging, which could solve part of this issue.

AC: 

• any suite that runs the continuous stepdown hook with kill_primary = true --> convert to a matrix suite definition (leverage the code committed here) which will allow you to take a common yaml file and build things on top of it to define the actual suite
• update the readme to ensure visibility of the new common yaml file 
• send out an email to database contributors to let them know this is available to be leveraged

Update:

• We also want to add last-continuous versions of explicit multiversion suites from SERVER-50389