agentleFS
jhonatan-oliveiradevjhonatan-oliveiradev/agent-skills/skills/testing-web-applications-end-to-end/SKILL.md

testing-web-applications-end-to-end

Skill1 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub

Use when a web application's assembled browser experience, critical user journeys, routing, forms, authentication, client state, or network behavior must be verified beyond component and integration tests.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

8 rules. About 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈8

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Use end-to-end tests to prove a small set of critical user journeys through the assembled product.

    line 9
  2. Distinctive:

    Keep the journey focused. Cover the minimum sequence of features that must work together to achieve the goal.

    line 13
  3. Distinctive:

    Start from controlled state: deterministic data, explicit authentication state, known feature flags, and an isolated browser context.

    line 14
  4. Distinctive:

    When a failure occurs, inspect the browser before patching code: visible UI, URL, console errors, failed requests, response status/body, …

    line 17
  5. Distinctive:

    Test negative or recovery paths only when they are critical to the journey: rejected auth, validation, failed request, retry, expired …

    line 18
  6. Distinctive:

    Keep tests independent. No journey should require another test to have run first.

    line 19
  7. Distinctive:

    Do not move every edge case into the browser.

    line 32
  8. Distinctive:

    Do not make Playwright, Cypress, or another runner part of the method itself.

    line 34

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Testing Web Applications End to End

Core principle

Use end-to-end tests to prove a small set of critical user journeys through the assembled product. Interact with the application as a user would and inspect browser evidence when the journey fails.

Journey workflow

  1. Define the user goal, starting state, and completion condition before writing selectors or actions.
  2. Keep the journey focused. Cover the minimum sequence of features that must work together to achieve the goal.
  3. Start from controlled state: deterministic data, explicit authentication state, known feature flags, and an isolated browser context.
  4. Navigate and interact through user-facing contracts such as roles, labels, text, URLs, and visible state. Avoid selectors coupled to styling or implementation internals.
  5. Assert meaningful outcomes rather than every intermediate DOM mutation.
  6. When a failure occurs, inspect the browser before patching code: visible UI, URL, console errors, failed requests, response status/body, storage/state, and screenshots when visual evidence matters.
  7. Test negative or recovery paths only when they are critical to the journey: rejected auth, validation, failed request, retry, expired state, or interrupted navigation.
  8. Keep tests independent. No journey should require another test to have run first.

Browser evidence

Capture the evidence needed to distinguish product defects from test defects:

  • the final visible state and URL;
  • console exceptions;
  • relevant request/response failures;
  • screenshot or trace for visual/timing failures;
  • exact reproduction steps and test data.

A screenshot alone is not root-cause evidence when console, network, or state explains the failure.

Scope discipline

Do not move every edge case into the browser. If a failure can be proven at a narrower layer with equal confidence, test it there and keep only enough end-to-end coverage to prove the assembled journey.

Do not make Playwright, Cypress, or another runner part of the method itself. Use the browser tooling available in the environment; when Playwright is available, prefer its user-facing locators, isolation model, traces, console/network inspection, and auto-waiting rather than arbitrary sleeps.

Verification

A good E2E suite answers two questions quickly: “Can users complete the critical journey?” and, when not, “What observable browser evidence narrows the failure?” If it cannot do both, reduce scope or improve observability.

References

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.