review

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): waitForTimeout() usage Non-web-first assertions (expect(await ...)) Hardcoded URLs instead of baseURL CSS/XPath selectors when role-based exists Missing await on Playwright calls Shared mutable state between tests Test execution order dependencies Warning (should fix): 8. Tests longer than 50 lines (consider splitting) 9. Magic strings without named constants 10. Missing error/edge case tests 11. page.evaluate() for things locators can do 12. Nested test.describe() more than 2 levels deep 13. Generic test names ("should work", "test 1") Info (consider): 14. No page objects for pages with 5+ locators 15. Inline test data instead of factory/fixture 16. Missing accessibility assertions 17. No visual regression tests for UI-heavy pages 18. Console error assertions not checked 19. Network idle waits instead of specific assertions 20. 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: ## — 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) Weekly Installs191Repositoryalirezarezvani/…e-skillsGitHub Stars5.5KFirst Seen12 days agoSecurity AuditsGen Agent Trust HubPassSocketPassSnykPassInstalled oncodex181gemini-cli179opencode179kimi-cli178github-copilot178cursor178