firefrost-gaming/claude-skills-reference

Files

Reza Rezvani 219c1c3dfd fix(seo): fix multi-line YAML description parser, add 2 orphan pages to nav

- generate-docs.py: extract_description_from_frontmatter() now handles
  multi-line YAML block scalars (|, >, indented continuation) — fixes
  14 pages that had 56-65 char truncated descriptions
- mkdocs.yml: add epic-design and research-summarizer to nav (orphan pages)
- Regenerated 251 pages, rebuilt sitemap (278 URLs)
- SEO audit: 0 broken links, 17→3 short descriptions, 278/278 pages
  have "Claude Code Skills" in <title>

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

2026-03-18 10:57:08 +01:00

3.6 KiB

Raw Blame History

title, description

title	description
Review Playwright Tests — Agent Skill & Codex Plugin	Review Playwright tests for quality. Use when user says 'review tests', 'check test quality', 'audit tests', 'improve tests', 'test code review', or. Agent skill for Claude Code, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI, OpenClaw.

Review Playwright Tests

:material-code-braces: Engineering - Core :material-identifier: `review` :material-github: Source

Install: claude /plugin install engineering-skills

Systematically review Playwright test files for anti-patterns, missed best practices, and coverage gaps.

Input

$ARGUMENTS can be:

A file path: review that specific test file
A directory: review all test files in the directory
Empty: review all tests in the project's testDir

Steps

1. Gather Context

Read playwright.config.ts for project settings
List all *.spec.ts / *.spec.js files in scope
If reviewing a single file, also check related page objects and fixtures

2. Check Each File Against Anti-Patterns

Load anti-patterns.md from this skill directory. Check for all 20 anti-patterns.

Critical (must fix):

waitForTimeout() usage
Non-web-first assertions (expect(await ...))
Hardcoded URLs instead of baseURL
CSS/XPath selectors when role-based exists
Missing await on Playwright calls
Shared mutable state between tests
Test execution order dependencies

Warning (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

3. Score Each File

Rate 1-10 based on:

9-10: Production-ready, follows all golden rules
7-8: Good, minor improvements possible
5-6: Functional but has anti-patterns
3-4: Significant issues, likely flaky
1-2: Needs rewrite

4. Generate Review Report

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?

5. For Project-Wide Review

If reviewing an entire test suite:

Spawn sub-agents per file for parallel review (up to 5 concurrent)
Or use /batch for very large suites
Aggregate results into a summary table

6. Offer Fixes

For each critical issue, provide the corrected code. Ask user: "Apply these fixes? [Yes/No]"

If yes, apply all fixes using Edit tool.

Output

File-by-file review with scores
Summary: total files, average score, critical issue count
Actionable fix list
Coverage gaps identified (pages/features with no tests)

3.6 KiB Raw Blame History