playwright-qa
Skill393 starsChanged 31 days agoMITView on GitHub
QA engineering workflows on top of Playwright. Use when a QA engineer asks to design test cases from a ticket, PRD or acceptance criteria, decide what to automate, write a bug report from a failing test or trace, convert manual test cases (TestRail, Xray, CSV) into Playwright specs with case-ID traceability, or review Playwright test code and pull requests.
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- a-saven/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Sep 11, 2026
- kuker24/OpenCodeBestFriendtheir own version, first seen Sep 5, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- a-saven/agent-skills★ 2same name
- kuker24/OpenCodeBestFriend★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository7 other files it gives its agents.
- playwright-ciSkill
- playwright-coreSkill
- playwright-frontendSkill
- playwright-migrationSkill
- playwright-cliSkill
- playwright-pomSkill
- playwright-skillSkill
The file
Files
Playwright QA Workflows
For QA engineers: the work around the test code. What to test, how to report what broke, how to automate a manual suite, and how to judge a test.
4 guides. They build on the core/ guides for the Playwright APIs and link to them rather than repeating them.
Guide Index
| What you're doing | Guide |
| Ticket / PRD / acceptance criteria → test cases, risk ranking, test plan for the generator | test-design.md |
| Failing test → app bug, test bug or flake; bug report; what to do with the test meanwhile | bug-reports.md |
| Manual test cases or a CSV export → Playwright specs with case IDs | manual-to-automated.md |
| Review Playwright tests or a PR; lint rules; prove a test can fail | test-review.md |
Golden Rules
- Boundaries and negative paths first: bugs live at the edges of a rule, not in the happy path.
- Lowest layer that proves it: rules at API level, wiring and critical flows in E2E.
- Classify before filing: app bug, test bug, flake or environment; the trace usually decides.
- Frequency is a number:
--repeat-each=20gives N/20, never "sometimes". - Known bug →
test.fail()with an issue link, never a deleted test or a loosened assertion. - A test that can't fail guards nothing: break the feature once and watch it fail.
- Keep case IDs on automated tests so results map back to the manual suite.
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.