automation-code-review
Skill1 starsChanged 28 days agoMITView on GitHub
Review Playwright, Selenium, Cypress, WebdriverIO or Appium test code (TS/JS, Python, Java) for reliability, maintainability, and best practice, with prioritized, line-referenced feedback.
In this repository16 other files it gives its agents.
- accessibility-auditSkill
- api-test-generatorSkill
- bug-report-writerSkill
- ci-cd-and-test-dataSkill
- device-cloud-setupSkill
- flaky-test-triageSkill
- framework-scaffolderSkill
- greenbuild-getting-startedSkill
- llm-app-testingSkill
- mobile-automationSkill
- performance-test-starterSkill
- regression-health-digestSkill
- release-readiness-checklistSkill
- test-plan-from-requirementsSkill
- tools-and-librariesSkill
- visual-testingSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈5
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 7
Check reliability: no hard sleeps.
- Distinctive: line 8
Check isolation: each test sets up and cleans up its own data.
- Distinctive: line 9
Check design: Page Object or Screenplay used sensibly, with no assertions buried in page objects unless that is a team convention.
- Distinctive: line 10
Check assertions: each test checks a meaningful outcome, not just "no exception".
- Distinctive: line 11
Check config and security: no hard-coded credentials or URLs (use env/config).
- Distinctive: line 12
Check CI fit: sharding/tags, retries limited and reported, artifacts uploaded.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Playwright / Selenium code review
- Get the diff, PR link, or files. Note the framework and language.
- Check reliability: no hard sleeps; web-first assertions (
expect(locator).toBeVisible()) or explicit waits; resilient locators (getByRole/getByTestId over brittle CSS/XPath); no assertions on timing. - Check isolation: each test sets up and cleans up its own data; no order dependence; safe to run in parallel; fixtures or hooks used correctly.
- Check design: Page Object or Screenplay used sensibly, with no assertions buried in page objects unless that is a team convention; DRY without hiding intent; clear names (should_
<behaviour>when<condition>). - Check assertions: each test checks a meaningful outcome, not just "no exception"; soft vs hard assertions chosen on purpose.
- Check config and security: no hard-coded credentials or URLs (use env/config); traces and screenshots on failure; sensible timeouts.
- Check CI fit: sharding/tags, retries limited and reported, artifacts uploaded.
- Output: verdict (Approve / Approve with nits / Request changes), then a table of Severity | file:line | Issue | Suggested fix (with a code snippet). Keep blockers separate from nits.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

