‹ 首页

review

@adriannoes · 收录于 1 周前

Review Playwright tests for quality. Use when user says "review tests", "check test quality", "audit tests", "improve tests", "test code review", or "playwright best practices check".

适合你,如果正在编写或维护 Playwright 测试,需要确保测试质量

/ 下载安装
review.skill双击,或拖进 Claude 桌面版 / Cowork,即完成安装↓ .skill↓ .zip
用别的 agent?下载 .zip 解压,把文件夹放进它的技能目录
Claude Code~/.claude/skills/(项目级 .claude/skills/)
Codex CLI~/.codex/skills/
Cursor自动读取上面两处目录
其他工具见其文档的「skills」目录;两个下载是同一份文件,只是名字不同
/ 通过 npx 安装 校验哈希
npx oh-my-skill add adriannoes/awesome-vibe-coding/review
/ 通过 bash 安装
curl -fsSL https://oh-my-skill.com/install.sh | bash -s -- adriannoes/awesome-vibe-coding/review
/ 已经装过?验证本机副本,不用重装
npx oh-my-skill verify adriannoes/awesome-vibe-coding/review
安装目标可用 --agent / --scope 或 --to 明确指定;省略时只会在唯一已存在的 agent 目录上自动选择,零命中或多命中会停止并提示。content_hash 缺失或不一致均拒装。
44GitHub stars
~688最小装载
~1.7K含声明引用
~1.7K文本包总量
镜像托管

怎么用

技能原文 SKILL.md作者撰写 · MIT · e4ed3a9

Review Playwright Tests

Systematically review Playwright test files for anti-patterns, missed best practices, and coverage gaps.

Input

$ARGUMENTS can be:

  • A file path: review that specific test file
  • A directory: review all test files in the directory
  • Empty: review all tests in the project's testDir
Steps
1. Gather Context
  • Read playwright.config.ts for project settings
  • List all *.spec.ts / *.spec.js files in scope
  • If reviewing a single file, also check related page objects and fixtures
2. Check Each File Against Anti-Patterns

Load anti-patterns.md from this skill directory. Check for all 20 anti-patterns.

Critical (must fix):

  1. waitForTimeout() usage
  2. Non-web-first assertions (expect(await ...))
  3. Hardcoded URLs instead of baseURL
  4. CSS/XPath selectors when role-based exists
  5. Missing await on Playwright calls
  6. Shared mutable state between tests
  7. Test execution order dependencies

Warning (should fix):

  1. Tests longer than 50 lines (consider splitting)
  2. Magic strings without named constants
  3. Missing error/edge case tests
  4. page.evaluate() for things locators can do
  5. Nested test.describe() more than 2 levels deep
  6. Generic test names ("should work", "test 1")

Info (consider):

  1. No page objects for pages with 5+ locators
  2. Inline test data instead of factory/fixture
  3. Missing accessibility assertions
  4. No visual regression tests for UI-heavy pages
  5. Console error assertions not checked
  6. Network idle waits instead of specific assertions
  7. Missing test.describe() grouping
3. Score Each File

Rate 1-10 based on:

  • 9-10: Production-ready, follows all golden rules
  • 7-8: Good, minor improvements possible
  • 5-6: Functional but has anti-patterns
  • 3-4: Significant issues, likely flaky
  • 1-2: Needs rewrite
4. Generate Review Report

For each file:

## <filename> — Score: X/10

### Critical
- Line 15: `waitForTimeout(2000)` → use `expect(locator).toBeVisible()`
- Line 28: CSS selector `.btn-submit` → `getByRole('button', { name: "submit" })`

### Warning
- Line 42: Test name "test login" → "should redirect to dashboard after login"

### Suggestions
- Consider adding error case: what happens with invalid credentials?
5. For Project-Wide Review

If reviewing an entire test suite:

  • Spawn sub-agents per file for parallel review (up to 5 concurrent)
  • Or use /batch for very large suites
  • Aggregate results into a summary table
6. Offer Fixes

For each critical issue, provide the corrected code. Ask user: "Apply these fixes? [Yes/No]"

If yes, apply all fixes using Edit tool.

Output
  • File-by-file review with scores
  • Summary: total files, average score, critical issue count
  • Actionable fix list
  • Coverage gaps identified (pages/features with no tests)
按 MIT 许可原样转载,未经改动 · 在 GitHub 查看 →

评论

登录即可评论;带「已验证安装」的,是发布者名下有本店的安装或持有记录。