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/4e973d3eaf92d97f8d2e2d8abb39d8bdc8711b38/skills/browser-qa/SKILL.md at commit 4e973d3eaf92d97f8d2e2d8abb39d8bdc8711b38. 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 | 234,327 | 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.
Alternatives
affaan-m/ECC
Automate visual testing and UI interaction verification using browser automation after deployment.
event4u-app/agent-config
Use when the user says "review the design", "check the UI", or wants a comprehensive UI/UX review. Uses a 7-phase methodology covering interaction, responsiveness, accessibility, and more.
MoizIbnYousaf/marketing-cli
Optimizes multi-step conversion flows including signup, onboarding, upgrade, and checkout. Maps each step, identifies friction and drop-off risks, then recommends specific copy/UX changes with A/B test plans. Use when someone says 'signup flow', 'onboarding optimization', 'checkout conversion', 'paywall optimization', 'activation rate', 'funnel analysis', 'why are users dropping off', 'registration flow', 'trial conversion', 'free to paid', 'upgrade flow', 'user journey', or wants to improve any
CherryHQ/cherry-studio
Test Cherry Studio PRs by resolving and checking out a PR, statically inspecting its changes, running interactive UI tests against a safely tracked Electron instance through CDP, producing a structured report, cleaning up only the owned test instance, and restoring the original branch.