Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

ui-test(用户界面测试)

用于辅助界面设计、视觉规范、排版、配色、布局和交互体验优化。它适合让 Agent 根据产品场景整理页面结构、生成 UI 方案、检查视觉一致性或改进组件层级。使用时需要结合现有品牌、设计系统和用户任务,不应只堆装饰元素;涉及真实页面改动时,应通过截图或浏览器预览检查文本溢出、对齐和响应式表现。

ui-test 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为操作浏览器;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描有提醒项,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 9,598。

总安装 13,946周安装 576GitHub Stars 619下载 4,562核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
unknown

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:ui-test(用户界面测试)
来源仓库:https://github.com/browserbase/skills
仓库路径:skills/ui-test
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/browserbase/skills --skill ui-test
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/browserbase/skills --skill ui-test

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

用于用户界面可用性与视觉一致性的测试评估。适合检查排版、配色、间距和响应式表现。ui-test 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。可识别文本溢出、对齐问题和交互断点异常。建议配合浏览器预览或截图进行实际效果验证。主要用于发现并修复界面细节层面的问题。

适用宿主包括 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,接入前应确认版本、权限和运行环境要求。

来源仓库内路径:skills/ui-test

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add https://github.com/browserbase/skills --skill ui-test;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它需要操作浏览器,先在测试目录或测试账号里跑,确认没问题再放到正式项目。

常见问题

6 条

ui-test 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/browserbase/skills --skill ui-test。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

ui-test 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

ui-test 需要什么权限?

权限级别是操作浏览器。该 Skill 可能涉及浏览器控制能力,使用时可能读取或操作网页内容,需要在受控环境中确认权限边界。

ui-test 是免费的吗?

公开资料没有标注明确许可证,收费和商用限制都无法确认。正式使用前请到来源仓库核对授权说明。

ui-test 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 13,946 次,近一周安装 576 次,下载 4,562 次,GitHub 619 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

ui-test 安全吗?

第三方扫描有提醒项,说明存在需要人工确认的行为。安装前请打开源码看清它读了什么、联网到哪里。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。

先想清楚的地方

  • 许可证没有明确标注,能不能商用、能不能再分发都不确定。
  • 第三方扫描存在提醒项或未通过项,需要人工逐条确认。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。

不太适合

  • 需要明确授权才能用到公司项目里的场景。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
ui-test

用户界面测试 · 本页

13,946619操作浏览器未明确有提醒

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

UI Test — Agentic UI Testing Skill

Test UI changes in a real browser. Your job is to try to break things, not confirm they work.

Three workflows:

  • Diff-driven — analyze a git diff, test only what changed
  • Exploratory — navigate the app, find bugs the developer didn't think about
  • Parallel — fan out independent test groups across multiple Browserbase browsers

How Testing Works

The main agent coordinates — it plans test strategy, delegates to sub-agents, and merges results. Sub-agents do the actual browser testing.

Planning: multiple angles, then execute once

You MUST complete all three planning rounds yourself and output them before launching any sub-agents. Planning happens in your own response — it is NOT delegated to sub-agents. Do not skip ahead to execution.

Round 1 — Functional: What are the core user flows? What should work? Write out each test as: action → expected result.

Round 2 — Adversarial: Re-read Round 1. What did you miss? Think about: different user types/roles, error paths, empty states, race conditions, edge inputs (empty, huge, special chars, rapid clicks).

Round 3 — Coverage gaps: Re-read Rounds 1–2. What about: accessibility (axe-core, keyboard-only), mobile viewports, console errors, visual consistency with the rest of the app?

Deduplicate: Merge all three rounds into one numbered list of tests. Remove overlaps. Assign each test to a group (e.g. Group A, Group B).

Then execute once — launch one sub-agent per group. Each sub-agent receives its specific list of tests to run, nothing more. Sub-agents do not explore or plan — they execute assigned tests and report results.

Output the three rounds, the merged plan, and the group assignments in your response before calling any Agent tool.

Principles for splitting work

  • Sub-agents run assigned tests, not open exploration. The main agent hands each sub-agent a specific numbered list of tests. Sub-agents do not plan, explore, or decide what to test — they execute the list and stop.
  • The bottleneck is the slowest agent — split work so no single agent has a disproportionate share. Many small agents > few large ones.
  • Size the effort to the change — a single component fix doesn't need many agents or many steps. A full-page redesign does. Let the scope of the diff drive the plan.
  • No early stopping on failures — find as many bugs as possible within the assigned tests.

Giving sub-agents a step budget

The main agent MUST include an explicit browse step limit in every sub-agent prompt. Sub-agents do not self-limit — they will run until done unless told otherwise.

As a rough heuristic: ~25 steps for a few targeted checks, ~40 for a full page with functional + adversarial + a11y, ~75 for multiple pages or a broad category. Adjust based on what the assigned tests actually require — these are starting points, not rules.

As a rough heuristic: ~25 steps for a few targeted checks, ~40 for a full page with functional + adversarial + a11y, ~75 for multiple pages or a broad category. Adjust based on what the assigned tests actually require — these are starting points, not rules.

Every sub-agent prompt must include:

You have a budget of N browse steps (each `browse` command = 1 step). Count your steps as you go. When you reach N, stop immediately and report:
- STEP_PASS/STEP_FAIL for every test you completed
- STEP_SKIP|<test-id>|budget reached for every test you didn't get to

Do not retry or continue after hitting the budget.
Run only these tests: [numbered list from the merged plan]
Do not explore beyond the assigned tests.
Do NOT generate an HTML report or write any files. Return only step markers and your findings as text.

The main agent should NOT run browse commands itself (except to verify the dev server is up). All testing happens in sub-agents.

When a sub-agent hits its budget, the main agent accepts the partial results as-is. Do not re-run or retry the sub-agent. Include SKIPPED tests in the final report so the developer knows what wasn't covered.

Reporting

Every sub-agent reports back with:

Tests: 8 | Passed: 5 | Failed: 2 | Skipped: 1 | Pages visited: 2

The main agent merges into a final report with:

Tests: 20 | Passed: 14 | Failed: 4 | Skipped: 2 | Agents: 3 | Pass rate: 70%

Do not report "steps used" — browse command counts are implementation plumbing, not a meaningful metric for reviewers.

Testing Philosophy

You are an adversarial tester. Your goal is to find bugs, not prove correctness.

  • Try to break every feature you test. Don't just check "does the button exist?" — click it twice rapidly, submit empty forms, paste 500 characters, press Escape mid-flow.
  • Test what the developer didn't think about. Empty states, error recovery, keyboard-only navigation, mobile overflow.
  • Every assertion must be evidence-based. Compare before/after snapshots. Check specific elements by ref. Never report PASS without concrete evidence from the accessibility tree or a deterministic check.
  • Report failures with enough detail to reproduce. Include the exact action, what you expected, what you got, and a suggested fix.

Assertion Protocol

Every test step MUST produce a structured assertion. Do not write freeform "this looks good."

Step markers

For each test step, emit exactly one marker:

STEP_PASS|<step-id>|<evidence>

or

STEP_FAIL|<step-id>|<expected> → <actual>|<screenshot-path>
  • step-id: short identifier like homepage-cta, form-validation-error, modal-cancel
  • evidence: what you observed that proves the step passed (element ref, text content, URL, eval result)
  • expected → actual: what you expected vs what you got
  • screenshot-path: path to the saved screenshot (failures only — see Screenshot Capture below)

Screenshot Capture for Failures

Every STEP_FAIL MUST have an accompanying screenshot so the developer can see what went wrong visually.

When a test step fails:

# 1. Take a screenshot immediately after observing the failure
browse screenshot --path .context/ui-test-screenshots/<step-id>.png

# If --path is not supported, take the screenshot and save manually:
browse screenshot
# The browse CLI will output the screenshot path — move/copy it:
cp /tmp/browse-screenshot-*.png .context/ui-test-screenshots/<step-id>.png

Setup the screenshot directory at the start of any test run:

mkdir -p .context/ui-test-screenshots

Rules:

  • File name = step-id (e.g., double-submit.png, axe-audit.png, modal-focus-trap.png)
  • Store in .context/ui-test-screenshots/ — this directory is gitignored and accessible to the developer and other agents
  • For parallel runs, include the session name: <session>-<step-id>.png (e.g., signup-double-submit.png)
  • Take the screenshot at the moment of failure — capture the broken state, not after recovery
  • For visual/layout bugs, also screenshot the baseline (working state) for comparison: <step-id>-baseline.png

How to verify (in order of rigor)

  1. Deterministic check (strongest) — browse eval returns structured data you can inspect. Examples: axe-core violation count, document.title, form field value, console error array, element count.
  2. Snapshot element match — a specific element with a specific role and text exists in the accessibility tree. Check by ref: @0-12 button "Save". An element either exists in the tree or it doesn't.
  3. Before/after comparison — snapshot before action, act, snapshot after. Verify the tree changed in the expected way (element appeared, disappeared, text changed).
  4. Screenshot + visual judgment (weakest) — only for visual-only properties (color, spacing, layout) that the accessibility tree cannot capture. Always accompany with what specifically you're evaluating.

Before/after comparison pattern

This is the core verification loop. Use it for every interaction:

# 1. BEFORE: capture state
browse snapshot
# Record: what elements exist, their text, their refs

# 2. ACT: perform the interaction
browse click @0-12

# 3. AFTER: capture new state
browse snapshot
# Compare: what changed? What appeared? What disappeared?

# 4. ASSERT: emit marker based on comparison
# If dialog appeared: STEP_PASS|modal-open|dialog "Confirm" appeared at @0-20
# If nothing changed:
browse screenshot --path .context/ui-test-screenshots/modal-open.png
# STEP_FAIL|modal-open|expected dialog to appear → snapshot unchanged|.context/ui-test-screenshots/modal-open.png

Setup

which browse || npm install -g @browserbasehq/browse-cli

Avoid permission fatigue

This skill runs many browse commands (snapshots, clicks, evals). To avoid approving each one, add browse to your allowed commands:

Add both patterns to .claude/settings.json (project-level) or ~/.claude/settings.json (user-level):

{
  "permissions": {
    "allow": [
      "Bash(browse:*)",
      "Bash(BROWSE_SESSION=*)"
    ]
  }
}

The first pattern covers plain browse commands. The second covers parallel sessions (BROWSE_SESSION=signup browse open...). Both are needed to avoid approval prompts.

Mode Selection

TargetModeCommandAuth
localhost / 127.0.0.1Localbrowse env localNone needed (clean isolated local browser by default)
Deployed/staging siteRemotebrowse env remotecookie-sync → --context-id

Rule: If the target URL contains localhost or 127.0.0.1, always use browse env local.

Local Mode (default for localhost)

browse env local
browse open http://localhost:3000

browse env local uses a clean isolated local browser by default, which is best for reproducible localhost QA runs.

Use local-mode variants only when needed:

  • browse env local --auto-connect — auto-discover existing local Chrome, fallback to isolated. Use this only when the test explicitly needs existing local login/cookies/state.
  • browse env local <port|url> — attach to a specific CDP target (explicit local browser attach).

Remote Mode (deployed sites via cookie-sync)

# Step 1: Sync cookies from local Chrome to Browserbase
node .claude/skills/cookie-sync/scripts/cookie-sync.mjs --domains your-app.com
# Output: Context ID: ctx_abc123

# Step 2: Switch to remote mode
browse env remote
browse open https://staging.your-app.com --context-id ctx_abc123 --persist
browse snapshot
# ... run tests ...
browse stop

Cookie-sync flags: --domains, --context, --stealth, --proxy "City,ST,US"

Workflow A: Diff-Driven Testing

Phase 1: Analyze the diff

git diff --name-only HEAD~1          # or: git diff --name-only / git diff --name-only main...HEAD
git diff HEAD~1 -- <file>            # read actual changes

Categorize changed files:

File patternUI impactWhat to test
*.tsx, *.jsx, *.vue, *.svelteComponentRender, interaction, state, edge cases
pages/**, app/**, src/routes/**Route/pageNavigation, page load, content, 404 handling
*.css, *.scss, *.module.cssStyleVisual appearance (screenshot), responsive
*form*, *input*, *field*FormValidation, submission, empty input, long input, special chars
*modal*, *dialog*, *dropdown*InteractiveOpen/close, escape, focus trap, cancel vs confirm
*nav*, *menu*, *header*NavigationLinks, active states, routing, keyboard nav
Non-UI files onlyNoneSkip — report "no UI tests needed"

Phase 2: Map files to URLs

Detect framework: cat package.json | grep -E '"(next|react|vue|nuxt|svelte|@sveltejs|angular|vite)"'

FrameworkDefault portFile → URL pattern
Next.js App Router3000app/dashboard/page.tsx → /dashboard
Next.js Pages Router3000pages/about.tsx → /about
Vite5173Check router config
Nuxt3000pages/index.vue → /
SvelteKit5173src/routes/+page.svelte → /
Angular4200Check routing module

Phase 3: Ensure the right code is running

Before testing, verify the dev server is serving the code from the diff — not a stale branch.

If testing a PR or specific branch:

# Check what branch is currently checked out
git branch --show-current

# If it's not the PR branch, switch to it
git fetch origin <branch> && git checkout <branch>

# Install deps — the lockfile may differ between branches
yarn install  # or npm install / pnpm install

If the dev server was already running on a different branch, restart it after checkout.

Find a running dev server:

for port in 3000 3001 5173 4200 8080 8000 5000; do
  s=$(curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}" "http://localhost:$port" 2>/dev/null)
  if [ "$s" != "000" ]; then echo "Dev server on port $port (HTTP $s)"; fi
done

If nothing found: tell the user to start their dev server.

Verify it actually renders: After browse open + browse snapshot, check that the accessibility tree contains real page content (navigation, headings, interactive elements) — not just an error overlay or empty body. Next.js dev servers can return HTTP 200 while showing a full-screen build error dialog. If the snapshot is empty or dominated by an error dialog, the server is broken — fix the build before testing.

Phase 4: Generate test plan

For each changed area, plan both happy path AND adversarial tests:

Test Plan (based on git diff)
=============================
Changed: src/components/SignupForm.tsx (added email validation)

1. [happy] Valid email submits successfully
   URL: http://localhost:3000/signup
   Steps: fill valid email → submit → verify success message appears

2. [adversarial] Invalid email shows error
   Steps: fill "not-an-email" → submit → verify error message appears

3. [adversarial] Empty form submission
   Steps: click submit without filling anything → verify error, no crash

4. [adversarial] XSS in email field
   Steps: fill "<script>alert(1)</script>" → submit → verify sanitized/rejected

5. [adversarial] Rapid double-submit
   Steps: click submit twice quickly → verify no duplicate submission

6. [adversarial] Keyboard-only flow
   Steps: Tab to email → type → Tab to submit → Enter → verify success

Phase 5: Execute tests

browse stop 2>/dev/null
mkdir -p .context/ui-test-screenshots
# localhost/default QA → clean, reproducible local run
browse env local

For each test, follow the before/after pattern:

# Navigate
browse open http://localhost:3000/path
browse wait load

# BEFORE snapshot
browse snapshot
# Note the current state: elements, refs, text

# ACT
browse click @0-ref
# or: browse fill "selector" "value"
# or: browse type "text"
# or: browse press Enter

# AFTER snapshot
browse snapshot
# Compare against BEFORE: what changed?

# ASSERT with marker
# STEP_PASS|step-id|evidence  OR  STEP_FAIL|step-id|expected → actual

Phase 6: Report results

## UI Test Results

### STEP_PASS|valid-email-submit|status "Thanks!" appeared at @0-42 after submit
- URL: http://localhost:3000/signup
- Before: form with email input @0-3, submit button @0-7
- Action: filled "user@test.com", clicked @0-7
- After: form replaced by status element with "Thanks! We'll be in touch."

### STEP_FAIL|double-submit|expected single submission → form submitted twice|.context/ui-test-screenshots/double-submit.png
- URL: http://localhost:3000/signup
- Before: form with submit button @0-7
- Action: clicked @0-7 twice rapidly
- After: two success toasts appeared, suggesting duplicate submission
- Screenshot: .context/ui-test-screenshots/double-submit.png
- Suggestion: disable submit button after first click, or debounce the handler

---
**Summary: 4/6 passed, 2 failed**
Failed: double-submit, xss-sanitization

Screenshots saved to `.context/ui-test-screenshots/` — open any failed step's screenshot to see the broken state.

Always browse stop when done.

Phase 7: Generate HTML report

After producing the text report, generate a standalone HTML report that a reviewer can open in a browser. The report embeds screenshots inline (base64) so it works as a single file — no external dependencies.

Why: Text reports are good for the agent conversation, but reviewers (PMs, designers, other engineers) want a visual artifact they can open, scan, and share. Screenshots inline make failures immediately obvious.

How to generate
  1. Read the HTML template at references/report-template.html
  2. Build the report by replacing the template placeholders with actual test data:
PlaceholderValue
{{TITLE}}Report title for <title> tag (e.g., "UI Test: PR #1234 — OAuth Settings")
{{TITLE_HTML}}Report title for the visible <h1>. If a PR URL is available, wrap the PR reference in an <a> tag so it's clickable (e.g., UI Test: <a href="https://github.com/org/repo/pull/1234">PR #1234</a> — OAuth Settings). If no URL, use plain text same as {{TITLE}}.
{{META}}One-line context: date, app URL, user, branch
{{TOTAL_TESTS}}Total STEP_PASS + STEP_FAIL count
{{AGENT_COUNT}}Number of sub-agents that ran
{{PASS_COUNT}}Number of STEP_PASS
{{FAIL_COUNT}}Number of STEP_FAIL
{{PASS_RATE}}Integer percentage (e.g., "92")
{{RATE_CLASS}}good (≥90%), warn (70–89%), bad (<70%)
{{FAILURES_SECTION}}HTML for failed test cards (see below)
{{PASSES_SECTION}}HTML for passed test cards (see below)
  1. For each test result, generate a <details> card. Failed tests should be open by default so reviewers see them immediately:
<!-- Failed test card (open by default) -->
<div class="section">
  <h2>Failures <span class="count">{{FAIL_COUNT}}</span></h2>
  <details class="test-card fail" open>
    <summary>
      <span class="badge fail">FAIL</span>
      <span class="step-id">step-id-here</span>
      <span class="evidence">expected → actual</span>
    </summary>
    <div class="body">
      <dl>
        <dt>URL</dt><dd>http://localhost:3000/path</dd>
        <dt>Action</dt><dd>What was done</dd>
        <dt>Expected</dt><dd>What should have happened</dd>
        <dt>Actual</dt><dd>What happened instead</dd>
      </dl>
      <div class="suggestion">Fix: description of suggested fix</div>
      <div class="screenshot">
        <img src="data:image/png;base64,..." alt="Screenshot of failure">
        <div class="caption">step-id.png — captured at moment of failure</div>
      </div>
    </div>
  </details>
</div>

<!-- Passed test card (collapsed by default) -->
<div class="section">
  <h2>Passed <span class="count">{{PASS_COUNT}}</span></h2>
  <details class="test-card pass">
    <summary>
      <span class="badge pass">PASS</span>
      <span class="step-id">step-id-here</span>
      <span class="evidence">evidence summary</span>
    </summary>
    <div class="body">
      <dl>
        <dt>URL</dt><dd>http://localhost:3000/path</dd>
        <dt>Evidence</dt><dd>What was observed</dd>
      </dl>
    </div>
  </details>
</div>
  1. Embed screenshots as base64 so the HTML is fully self-contained:
# Convert screenshot to base64 data URI
base64 -i .context/ui-test-screenshots/step-id.png | tr -d '\n'
# Use as: src="data:image/png;base64,<output>"

Read each screenshot file referenced in STEP_FAIL markers, base64-encode it, and embed it as an <img src="data:image/png;base64,..."> in the corresponding test card. For STEP_PASS, only embed a screenshot if one was explicitly taken (e.g., baseline screenshots).

  1. Write the final HTML to .context/ui-test-report.html:
# Write the generated HTML
cat > .context/ui-test-report.html << 'REPORT_EOF'
<!DOCTYPE html>
...generated report...
REPORT_EOF

# Open it for the reviewer
open .context/ui-test-report.html  # macOS
# xdg-open .context/ui-test-report.html  # Linux
  1. Tell the user: Report saved to.context/ui-test-report.html and offer to open it.

Rules:

  • Failures section comes before passes — reviewers care about what's broken first
  • Failed cards are open by default; passed cards are collapsed
  • Every STEP_FAIL card MUST have an embedded screenshot — if the screenshot file is missing, note it in the card
  • Include the suggestion/fix in each failure card if one was provided
  • The report must work offline — no CDN links, no external assets
  • Keep the HTML under 5MB — if screenshots push it over, reduce image quality or skip baseline screenshots for passes

Adversarial Test Patterns

Apply these to every interactive element you test. Read references/adversarial-patterns.md for the full pattern library (forms, modals, navigation, error states, keyboard accessibility).

Deterministic Checks

These produce structured data, not judgment calls. Use them as the strongest form of assertion.

CheckWhat it catchesAssertion
axe-coreWCAG violationsviolations.length === 0
Console errorsRuntime exceptions, failed requestsempty error array
Broken imagesMissing/failed image loadsno images with naturalWidth === 0
Form labelsInputs without accessible labelsevery input has hasLabel: true

For the exact browse eval recipes, read references/browser-recipes.md.

Workflow B: Exploratory Testing

No diff, no plan — just open the app and try to break it. Use this when the user says "test my app", "find bugs", or "QA this site."

Approach

  1. Discover the app — read package.json to detect the framework, then open the root URL and snapshot to see what's there
  2. Navigate everything — click through nav links, visit every reachable page, note what exists
  3. Test what you find — for each page, apply the adversarial patterns below (forms, modals, navigation, keyboard, error states)
  4. Run deterministic checks — axe-core, console errors, broken images, form labels on every page
  5. Report findings — use STEP_PASS/STEP_FAIL markers, include reproduction steps for failures

Don't try to be systematic about coverage. Just explore like a user would, but with the intent to break things. The agent is good at this — let it roam.

Tips for exploratory runs

  • Start with the homepage, then follow the navigation naturally
  • Try the 404 page (/does-not-exist) — is it custom or default?
  • Look for empty states (pages with no data)
  • Test forms with garbage input before valid input
  • Check mobile viewport (375px) on every page — does it overflow?
  • If the app has auth, use cookie-sync first

Workflow C: Parallel Testing

Run independent test groups concurrently using named browse sessions (BROWSE_SESSION=<name>). Each session gets its own browser. Works with both local and remote mode.

Use when testing multiple pages or categories and you want faster wall clock time.

Read references/parallel-testing.md for the full workflow: session setup, agent fan-out, cookie-sync for auth, and result merging.

Design Consistency

Check whether changed UI matches the rest of the app visually. Read references/design-consistency.md when doing visual or design checks.

Test Categories

CategoryHowAssertion type
Accessibilityaxe-core + keyboard navDeterministic (violation count)
Visual QualityScreenshot + heuristic evaluationVisual judgment (weakest — note specifics)
ResponsiveViewport sweep + screenshotsVisual + deterministic (overflow check)
Console HealthConsole capture evalDeterministic (error count)
UX HeuristicsSnapshot + Laws of UX + Nielsen'sStructured judgment (cite specific heuristic)
Error StatesNavigate to empty/error statesBefore/after comparison
Data DisplaySnapshot on tables/dashboardsElement match (column count, formatting)
Design ConsistencyScreenshot baseline + changed page comparisonVisual judgment (cite specific property)
ExploratoryFree navigation + adversarial testingBefore/after + judgment

Reference guides (load on demand):

For worked examples with exact commands, read EXAMPLES.md if you need to see the assertion protocol in action.

Best Practices

  1. Be adversarial — try to break things, don't just confirm they work
  2. Every assertion needs evidence — snapshot ref, eval result, or before/after diff
  3. Before/after for every interaction — snapshot, act, snapshot, compare
  4. Screenshot every failure — browse screenshot immediately on STEP_FAIL, save to .context/ui-test-screenshots/<step-id>.png
  5. Deterministic checks first — axe-core, console errors, form labels before visual judgment
  6. For localhost, start with clean local mode — use browse env local first for reproducible runs; use --auto-connect only when existing local state is required
  7. Always browse stop when done — for parallel runs, stop every named session
  8. Report failures with reproduction steps — action, expected, actual, screenshot path, suggestion
  9. Parallelize independent tests — use Workflow C with named sessions when testing multiple pages or categories on a deployed site

Troubleshooting

  • "No active page": browse stop, retry. For zombies: pkill -f "browse.*daemon"
  • Dev server not responding: curl http://localhost:<port> — ask user to start it
  • browse eval with await fails: Use .then() instead — browse eval doesn't support top-level await
  • Element ref not found: browse snapshot again — refs change on page update
  • Blank snapshot: browse wait load or browse wait selector ".expected" before snapshotting
  • SPA deep links 404: Navigate to / first, then click through
  • Remote auth fails: Re-run cookie-sync with --context <id>, try --stealth
  • Parallel session conflicts: Ensure every browse command uses BROWSE_SESSION=<name> — without it, commands go to the default session
  • Session not stopping: BROWSE_SESSION=<name> browse stop. For zombies: pkill -f "browse.*<name>.*daemon"

平台分布

Codex

38.47%
按下载量换算1,755

Claude

27.27%
按下载量换算1,244

Cursor

20.02%
按下载量换算913

Gemini CLI

8.64%
按下载量换算394

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

可疑

权限和风险

操作浏览器

该 Skill 可能涉及浏览器控制能力,使用时可能读取或操作网页内容,需要在受控环境中确认权限边界。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。来源安全扫描存在提醒或未通过项,安装前请自行复核。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills