engineering-team/playwright-pro/skills/review/SKILL.md
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".
npx skillsauth add alirezarezvani/claude-skills reviewInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
Systematically review Playwright test files for anti-patterns, missed best practices, and coverage gaps.
$ARGUMENTS can be:
testDirplaywright.config.ts for project settings*.spec.ts / *.spec.js files in scopeLoad anti-patterns.md from this skill directory. Check for all 20 anti-patterns.
Critical (must fix):
waitForTimeout() usageexpect(await ...))baseURLawait on Playwright callsWarning (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
Rate 1-10 based on:
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?
If reviewing an entire test suite:
/batch for very large suitesFor each critical issue, provide the corrected code. Ask user: "Apply these fixes? [Yes/No]"
If yes, apply all fixes using Edit tool.
tools
Code review automation for TypeScript, JavaScript, Python, Go, Swift, Kotlin, C#, .NET, Java, C, C++, Rust, Ruby, PHP, and Dart/Flutter. Analyzes PRs for complexity and risk, checks code quality for SOLID violations and code smells, generates review reports. Use when reviewing pull requests, analyzing code quality, identifying issues, generating review checklists.
tools
Use when planning, funding, scoping, or synthesizing enterprise research across workstreams — clinical study design, R&D program finance, market sizing/surveys, or product/user research. Triggers on "design this clinical study", "what sample size", "R&D budget", "burn rate", "capitalize or expense", "TAM SAM SOM", "market sizing", "survey design", "segment the market", "plan user interviews", "usability test", "synthesize research insights". Forks context to route to one of four Research-Operations sub-skills (clinical-research, research-finance, market-research, product-research) and returns a digest. Distinct from ra-qm-team (regulatory submission), finance (corporate close/valuation), research/grants (funding discovery), product-team (persona/journey/live experiments), and marketing-skill (campaign analytics).
development
Use when managing the money for an internal R&D program or portfolio — building a multi-period program budget with the F&A (indirect) split, tracking burn rate and runway against value-inflection milestones, or routing R&D cost items to a capitalize-vs-expense determination. Every budget output surfaces its assumptions block; capitalize-vs-expense is decision-support only and routes to a named finance owner — it never books an entry or decides accounting treatment. Distinct from finance/financial-analysis (corporate DCF, close, valuation) and research/grants (funding discovery — this manages money already won).
development
Use when planning and synthesizing product/user research as a method-and-repository discipline — selecting the right method for the goal (generative interviews vs usability test vs concept test vs validation), computing method-based saturation/sample size with an explicit confidence level, or synthesizing coded observations into insights while flagging single-source anecdotes. Never fabricates user insight; an insight requires recurrence across independent participants. Distinct from product-team/ux-researcher-designer (persona/journey artifacts), product-discovery (discovery-sprint planning), and experiment-designer (live A/B) — this is the research-ops method + insight-repository layer.