review
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
用别的 agent?下载 .zip 解压,把文件夹放进它的技能目录
~/.claude/skills/(项目级 .claude/skills/)~/.codex/skills/npx oh-my-skill add adriannoes/awesome-vibe-coding/reviewcurl -fsSL https://oh-my-skill.com/install.sh | bash -s -- adriannoes/awesome-vibe-coding/reviewnpx oh-my-skill verify adriannoes/awesome-vibe-coding/review怎么用
商店整理自技能原文 · 版本 e4ed3a9 · 表述以原文为准安装后,Claude 会审查 Playwright 测试文件,检查反模式、最佳实践遗漏和覆盖率缺口,并给出评分和修复建议。
当你说“review tests”、“check test quality”、“audit tests”、“improve tests”、“test code review”或“playwright best practices check”时触发。
技能原文 SKILL.md
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.tsfor project settings - List all
*.spec.ts/*.spec.jsfiles 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):
waitForTimeout()usage- Non-web-first assertions (
expect(await ...)) - Hardcoded URLs instead of
baseURL - CSS/XPath selectors when role-based exists
- Missing
awaiton Playwright calls - Shared mutable state between tests
- Test execution order dependencies
Warning (should fix):
- Tests longer than 50 lines (consider splitting)
- Magic strings without named constants
- Missing error/edge case tests
page.evaluate()for things locators can do- Nested
test.describe()more than 2 levels deep - Generic test names ("should work", "test 1")
Info (consider):
- No page objects for pages with 5+ locators
- Inline test data instead of factory/fixture
- Missing accessibility assertions
- No visual regression tests for UI-heavy pages
- Console error assertions not checked
- Network idle waits instead of specific assertions
- 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
/batchfor 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)