Best for
- After deploying a feature to staging/preview
- When you need to verify UI behavior across pages
- Before shipping — confirm layouts, forms, interactions actually work
affaan-m/ECC/skills/browser-qa/SKILL.md
Use this skill to automate visual testing and UI interaction verification using browser automation after deploying features.
Decision brief
Use this skill to automate visual testing and UI interaction verification using browser automation after deploying features.
Compatibility matrix
| Platform | Status | Evidence | What to check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Codex | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Claude Code | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Cursor | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Gemini CLI | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
Installation
The source command is displayed only when detected. A safe inspection prompt is always available so your agent can explain every action before execution.
npx skills add https://github.com/affaan-m/ECC --skill "skills/browser-qa"Inspect the Agent Skill "browser-qa" from https://github.com/affaan-m/ECC/blob/d8409a4b0813771235555e32e3d8046a73988bfa/skills/browser-qa/SKILL.md at commit d8409a4b0813771235555e32e3d8046a73988bfa. List every install step, command, network request, credential, file read/write, external action, and rollback step. Explain whether it fits my task. Do not install or execute anything until I approve.
Workflow
Review the “Phase 1: Smoke Test” section in the pinned source before continuing.
Review the “Phase 2: Interaction Test” section in the pinned source before continuing.
Review the “Phase 3: Visual Regression” section in the pinned source before continuing.
Note: axe-core automatically covers roughly 30–40% of WCAG. A clean run is necessary, not sufficient — keyboard nav, focus order, and a screen-reader pass still need a manual check. Don't report "accessible" from an automated pass alone.
Permission review
No configured static risk pattern was detected
This is not proof of safety. Runtime behavior, indirect dependencies, and hidden external systems are outside the static scan.
Evidence record
| Signal | Value | Evidence type | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality score | 90/100 | Computed | Documentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules |
| Repository stars | 242,963 | Source | Repository attention, not individual Skill quality |
| Compatibility | 0 platforms | Source | Declared in the catalog source record |
| Usage guide | automated source guide | Editorial | Generated or reviewed according to the visible evidence level |
Pinned source
Uses the browser automation MCP (claude-in-chrome, Playwright, or Puppeteer) to interact with live pages like a real user.
Browser QA drives real auth and real user journeys, so treat the blast radius explicitly. Default to read-only: never run a mutating journey (checkout, payment, delete, mass-update) against a production URL — require an explicit opt-in and a staging/preview URL. Use seeded test credentials, never real production logins, and redact credentials/tokens/PII before saving any screenshot.
1. Navigate to target URL
2. Check for console errors (filter noise: analytics, third-party)
3. Verify no 4xx/5xx in network requests
4. Screenshot above-the-fold on desktop + mobile viewport
5. Check Core Web Vitals: LCP < 2.5s, CLS < 0.1, INP < 200ms
(INP replaced FID in March 2024; thresholds per web.dev)
1. Click every nav link — verify no dead links
2. Submit forms with valid data — verify success state
3. Submit forms with invalid data — verify error state
4. Test auth flow: login → protected page → logout (test creds only, never prod)
5. Test critical user journeys (checkout, onboarding, search)
— read-only by default; only exercise mutating journeys against staging
with explicit opt-in (see "Safety first" above)
1. Screenshot key pages at 3 breakpoints (375px, 768px, 1440px)
2. Compare against committed baseline screenshots
— no baseline ⇒ report INCONCLUSIVE, never a silent PASS
3. Flag layout shifts > 5px, missing elements, overflow
4. Check dark mode if applicable
1. Run axe-core or equivalent on each page
2. Flag WCAG 2.2 AA violations (contrast, labels, focus order)
3. Verify keyboard navigation works end-to-end
4. Check screen reader landmarks
Note: axe-core automatically covers roughly 30–40% of WCAG. A clean run is necessary, not sufficient — keyboard nav, focus order, and a screen-reader pass still need a manual check. Don't report "accessible" from an automated pass alone.
## QA Report — [URL] — [timestamp]
### Smoke Test
- Console errors: 0 critical, 2 warnings (analytics noise)
- Network: all 200/304, no failures
- Core Web Vitals: LCP 1.2s ✓, CLS 0.02 ✓, INP 89ms ✓
### Interactions
- [✓] Nav links: 12/12 working
- [✗] Contact form: missing error state for invalid email
- [✓] Auth flow: login/logout working
### Visual
- [✗] Hero section overflows on 375px viewport
- [✓] Dark mode: all pages consistent
### Accessibility
- 2 AA violations: missing alt text on hero image, low contrast on footer links
### Verdict: SHIP WITH FIXES (2 issues, 0 blockers)
# verdict ∈ SHIP / SHIP WITH FIXES / DO NOT SHIP; use INCONCLUSIVE if no visual baseline
Works with any browser MCP:
mChild__claude-in-chrome__* tools (preferred — uses your actual Chrome)mcp__browserbase__*Pair with /canary-watch for post-deploy monitoring.
Frequently asked questions
Use this skill to automate visual testing and UI interaction verification using browser automation after deploying features.
The source record exposes this install command: npx skills add https://github.com/affaan-m/ECC --skill "skills/browser-qa". Inspect the command and pinned source before running it.
Alternatives
yonatangross/orchestkit
Grade work that already exists and decide whether it can merge. Runs the project's current unit, integration, and E2E suites plus security scanning and type checking, scores every dimension 0-10, and returns a merge verdict with a VERIFIED-vs-CLAIMED evidence manifest. Writes no test files and edits no source. Use when verifying changes are ready to merge. Use /ork:cover instead when the tests still have to be written.
microsoft/Sico
Execute Android UI workflows on a sandbox device, review results, and produce a structured execution report.
laurigates/claude-plugins
Analyze test results and create a fix plan with subagents. Use when triaging failing tests, analyzing JUnit XML, planning fixes for accessibility/security, or categorizing flaky/E2E failures.
mgiovani/cc-arsenal
Multi-agent review team: architecture, security, performance, testing, style, docs/UX, plus an adversary that cross-examines the other 6, for security-sensitive, architectural, or large PRs (15+ files) where a single-agent pass risks missing cross-cutting issues. Use for auth/payments/PII changes, schema/pattern changes, compliance sign-off, or when asked to 'get the review team on this' / 'multi-agent review' / 'thorough review before merge'. For a standard PR or a quick pre-merge check, use /r