UI Test
BrowserbaseOfficialCreated by browserbase
- Skill
- Review and audit
- Software development
- MIT
- Low risk
AutoGineer summary
Written by AutoGineer from the skill’s own files, not by the author
UI Test is an agentic skill designed to perform adversarial testing on web applications. Rather than simply verifying that features exist, it actively attempts to break them by simulating real-world user behaviors, such as rapid double-clicks, invalid form inputs, and keyboard-only navigation. It supports three primary workflows: diff-driven testing for targeted PR reviews, exploratory testing for general site QA, and parallel testing for high-coverage scenarios. The skill uses the browse CLI to interact with local or remote environments, producing evidence-based reports with screenshots and deterministic checks.
What it does
- Analyzes git diffs to focus testing on specific code changes.
- Performs adversarial testing including empty states, race conditions, and XSS attempts.
- Conducts accessibility audits using axe-core and keyboard navigation checks.
- Generates self-contained HTML reports with embedded screenshots for failed tests.
- Supports both local development environments and remote deployed sites.
- Uses a structured before/after snapshot pattern to verify UI state changes.
When to use it
- When you need to validate UI changes in a pull request.
- When performing exploratory QA on a new or existing web application.
- When auditing a site for accessibility and responsive layout issues.
- When you need to identify edge-case bugs that standard unit tests might miss.
Advantages
- Adversarial approach finds bugs developers often overlook.
- Evidence-based reporting with screenshots simplifies debugging.
- Flexible workflows allow for both targeted and broad testing.
- Deterministic checks provide objective pass/fail criteria.
- Parallel execution reduces total testing time for large applications.
Usage examples
- “Test the UI changes in my current branch against the main branch.”
- The agent analyzes the git diff, identifies affected components, creates a test plan, and executes adversarial tests to ensure the changes are robust.
- “Perform an exploratory QA pass on the staging site.”
- The agent navigates the application, tests forms and navigation, checks for accessibility violations, and reports any bugs found.
Install
Download the skill as a ZIP:
https://mp-staging.autogineer.com/agent-skills/browserbase/ui-test/downloadUnzip it into the cross-client skills folder of your project:
mkdir -p .agents/skills && unzip ui-test.zip -d .agents/skills
Documentation by browserbase
UI Test — Agentic UI Testing Skill
Test UI changes in a real browser. Your job is to try to break things, not confirm they work.
Three workflows:
Diff-driven — analyze a git diff, test only what changed
Exploratory — navigate the app, find bugs the developer didn't think about
Parallel — fan out independent test groups across multiple Browserbase browsers
How Testing Works
The main agent coordinates — it plans test strategy, delegates to sub-agents, and merges results. Sub-agents do the actual browser testing.
Planning: multiple angles, then execute once
You MUST complete all three planning rounds yourself and output them before launching any sub-agents. Planning happens in your own response — it is NOT delegated to sub-agents. Do not skip ahead to execution.
Round 1 — Functional: What are the core user flows? What should work? Write out each test as: action → expected result.
Round 2 — Adversarial: Re-read Round 1. What did you miss? Think about: different user types/roles, error paths, empty states, race conditions, edge inputs (empty, huge, special chars, rapid clicks).
Round 3 — Coverage gaps: Re-read Rounds 1–2. What about: accessibility (axe-core, keyboard-only), mobile viewports, console errors, visual consistency with the rest of the app?
Deduplicate: Merge all three rounds into one numbered list of tests. Remove overlaps. Assign each test to a group (e.g. Group A, Group B).
Then execute once — launch one sub-agent per group. Each sub-agent receives its specific list of tests to run, nothing more. Sub-agents do not explore or plan — they execute assigned tests and report results.
Output the three rounds, the merged plan, and the group assignments in your response before calling any Agent tool.
Principles for splitting work
Sub-agents run assigned tests, not open exploration. The main agent hands each sub-agent a specific numbered list of tests. Sub-agents do not plan, explore, or decide what to test — they execute the list and stop.
The bottleneck is the slowest agent — split work so no single agent has a disproportionate share. Many small agents > few large ones.
Size the effort to the change — a single component fix doesn't need many agents or many steps. A full-page redesign does. Let the scope of the diff drive the plan.
No early stopping on failures — find as many bugs as possible within the assigned tests.
Giving sub-agents a step budget
The main agent MUST include an explicit browse step limit in every sub-agent prompt. Sub-agents do not self-limit — they will run until done unless told otherwise.
As a rough heuristic: ~25 steps for a few targeted checks, ~40 for a full page with functional + adversarial + a11y, ~75 for multiple pages or a broad category. Adjust based on what the assigned tests actually require — these are starting points, not rules.
As a rough heuristic: ~25 steps for a few targeted checks, ~40 for a full page with functional + adversarial + a11y, ~75 for multiple pages or a broad category. Adjust based on what the assigned tests actually require — these are starting points, not rules.
Every sub-agent prompt must include:
You have a budget of N browse steps (each `browse` command = 1 step). Count your steps as you go. When you reach N, stop immediately and report:
- STEP_PASS/STEP_FAIL for every test you completed
- STEP_SKIP|<test-id>|budget reached for every test you didn't get to
Do not retry or continue after hitting the budget.
Run only these tests: [numbered list from the merged plan]
Do not explore beyond the assigned tests.
Do NOT generate an HTML report or write any files. Return only step markers and your findings as text.The main agent should NOT run browse commands itself (except to verify the dev server is up). All testing happens in sub-agents.
When a sub-agent hits its budget, the main agent accepts the partial results as-is. Do not re-run or retry the sub-agent. Include SKIPPED tests in the final report so the developer knows what wasn't covered.
Reporting
Every sub-agent reports back with:
Tests: 8 | Passed: 5 | Failed: 2 | Skipped: 1 | Pages visited: 2The main agent merges into a final report with:
Tests: 20 | Passed: 14 | Failed: 4 | Skipped: 2 | Agents: 3 | Pass rate: 70%Do not report "steps used" — browse command counts are implementation plumbing, not a meaningful metric for reviewers.
Testing Philosophy
You are an adversarial tester. Your goal is to find bugs, not prove correctness.
Try to break every feature you test. Don't just check "does the button exist?" — click it twice rapidly, submit empty forms, paste 500 characters, press Escape mid-flow.
Test what the developer didn't think about. Empty states, error recovery, keyboard-only navigation, mobile overflow.
Every assertion must be evidence-based. Compare before/after snapshots. Check specific elements by ref. Never report PASS without concrete evidence from the accessibility tree or a deterministic check.
Report failures with enough detail to reproduce. Include the exact action, what you expected, what you got, and a suggested fix.
Assertion Protocol
Every test step MUST produce a structured assertion. Do not write freeform "this looks good."
Step markers
For each test step, emit exactly one marker:
STEP_PASS|<step-id>|<evidence>or
STEP_FAIL|<step-id>|<expected> → <actual>|<screenshot-path>step-id: short identifier likehomepage-cta,form-validation-error,modal-cancelevidence: what you observed that proves the step passed (element ref, text content, URL, eval result)expected → actual: what you expected vs what you gotscreenshot-path: path to the saved screenshot (failures only — see Screenshot Capture below)
Screenshot Capture for Failures
Every STEP_FAIL MUST have an accompanying screenshot so the developer can see what went wrong visually.
When a test step fails:
# 1. Take a screenshot immediately after observing the failure
browse screenshot --path .context/ui-test-screenshots/<step-id>.png
# If --path is not supported, take the screenshot and save manually:
browse screenshot
# The browse CLI will output the screenshot path — move/copy it:
cp /tmp/browse-screenshot-*.png .context/ui-test-screenshots/<step-id>.pngSetup the screenshot directory at the start of any test run:
mkdir -p .context/ui-test-screenshotsRules:
File name = step-id (e.g.,
double-submit.png,axe-audit.png,modal-focus-trap.png)Store in
.context/ui-test-screenshots/— this directory is gitignored and accessible to the developer and other agentsFor parallel runs, include the session name:
<session>-<step-id>.png(e.g.,signup-double-submit.png)Take the screenshot at the moment of failure — capture the broken state, not after recovery
For visual/layout bugs, also screenshot the baseline (working state) for comparison:
<step-id>-baseline.png
How to verify (in order of rigor)
Deterministic check (strongest) —
browse evalreturns structured data you can inspect. Examples: axe-core violation count,document.title, form field value, console error array, element count.Snapshot element match — a specific element with a specific role and text exists in the accessibility tree. Check by ref:
@0-12 button "Save". An element either exists in the tree or it doesn't.Before/after comparison — snapshot before action, act, snapshot after. Verify the tree changed in the expected way (element appeared, disappeared, text changed).
Screenshot + visual judgment (weakest) — only for visual-only properties (color, spacing, layout) that the accessibility tree cannot capture. Always accompany with what specifically you're evaluating.
Before/after comparison pattern
This is the core verification loop. Use it for every interaction:
# 1. BEFORE: capture state
browse snapshot
# Record: what elements exist, their text, their refs
# 2. ACT: perform the interaction
browse click @0-12
# 3. AFTER: capture new state
browse snapshot
# Compare: what changed? What appeared? What disappeared?
# 4. ASSERT: emit marker based on comparison
# If dialog appeared: STEP_PASS|modal-open|dialog "Confirm" appeared at @0-20
# If nothing changed:
browse screenshot --path .context/ui-test-screenshots/modal-open.png
# STEP_FAIL|modal-open|expected dialog to appear → snapshot unchanged|.context/ui-test-screenshots/modal-open.pngSetup
which browse || npm install -g browseAvoid permission fatigue
This skill runs many browse commands (snapshots, clicks, evals). To avoid approving each one, add browse to your allowed commands:
Add both patterns to .claude/settings.json (project-level) or ~/.claude/settings.json (user-level):
{
"permissions": {
"allow": [
"Bash(browse:*)",
"Bash(BROWSE_SESSION=*)"
]
}
}The first pattern covers plain browse commands. The second covers parallel sessions (BROWSE_SESSION=signup browse open ...). Both are needed to avoid approval prompts.
Mode Selection
| Target | Mode | Command | Auth |
|---|---|---|---|
localhost / 127.0.0.1 | Local | browse open <url> --local | None needed (clean isolated local browser by default) |
| Deployed/staging site | Remote | browse open <url> --remote | Browserbase credentials; use contexts where supported |
Rule: If the target URL contains localhost or 127.0.0.1, pass --local on the first browse open.
Local Mode (default for localhost)
browse open http://localhost:3000 --localbrowse open ... --local uses a clean isolated local browser by default, which is best for reproducible localhost QA runs.
Use local-mode variants only when needed:
browse open <url> --auto-connect— auto-discover an existing debuggable local Chrome. Use this only when the test explicitly needs existing local login/cookies/state.browse open <url> --cdp <port|url>— attach to a specific CDP target (explicit local browser attach).
Remote Mode (deployed sites via cookie-sync)
# Step 1: Sync cookies from local Chrome to Browserbase
node .claude/skills/cookie-sync/scripts/cookie-sync.mjs --domains your-app.com
# Output: Context ID: ctx_abc123
# Step 2: Open in remote mode with the synced context
SESSION_JSON="$(browse cloud sessions create --context-id ctx_abc123 --persist --keep-alive)"
SESSION_ID="$(echo "$SESSION_JSON" | jq -r .id)"
CONNECT_URL="$(echo "$SESSION_JSON" | jq -r .connectUrl)"
browse open https://staging.your-app.com --cdp "$CONNECT_URL"
browse snapshot
# ... run tests ...
browse stop
browse cloud sessions update "$SESSION_ID" --status REQUEST_RELEASECookie-sync flags: --domains, --context, --verified, --proxy "City,ST,US"
Workflow A: Diff-Driven Testing
Phase 1: Analyze the diff
git diff --name-only HEAD~1 # or: git diff --name-only / git diff --name-only main...HEAD
git diff HEAD~1 -- <file> # read actual changesCategorize changed files:
| File pattern | UI impact | What to test |
|---|---|---|
*.tsx, *.jsx, *.vue, *.svelte | Component | Render, interaction, state, edge cases |
pages/**, app/**, src/routes/** | Route/page | Navigation, page load, content, 404 handling |
*.css, *.scss, *.module.css | Style | Visual appearance (screenshot), responsive |
*form*, *input*, *field* | Form | Validation, submission, empty input, long input, special chars |
*modal*, *dialog*, *dropdown* | Interactive | Open/close, escape, focus trap, cancel vs confirm |
*nav*, *menu*, *header* | Navigation | Links, active states, routing, keyboard nav |
| Non-UI files only | None | Skip — report "no UI tests needed" |
Phase 2: Map files to URLs
Detect framework: cat package.json | grep -E '"(next|react|vue|nuxt|svelte|@sveltejs|angular|vite)"'
| Framework | Default port | File → URL pattern |
|---|---|---|
| Next.js App Router | 3000 | app/dashboard/page.tsx → /dashboard |
| Next.js Pages Router | 3000 | pages/about.tsx → /about |
| Vite | 5173 | Check router config |
| Nuxt | 3000 | pages/index.vue → / |
| SvelteKit | 5173 | src/routes/+page.svelte → / |
| Angular | 4200 | Check routing module |
Phase 3: Ensure the right code is running
Before testing, verify the dev server is serving the code from the diff — not a stale branch.
If testing a PR or specific branch:
# Check what branch is currently checked out
git branch --show-current
# If it's not the PR branch, switch to it
git fetch origin <branch> && git checkout <branch>
# Install deps — the lockfile may differ between branches
yarn install # or npm install / pnpm installIf the dev server was already running on a different branch, restart it after checkout.
Find a running dev server:
for port in 3000 3001 5173 4200 8080 8000 5000; do
s=$(curl -s -o /dev/null -w "%{http_code}" "http://localhost:$port" 2>/dev/null)
if [ "$s" != "000" ]; then echo "Dev server on port $port (HTTP $s)"; fi
doneIf nothing found: tell the user to start their dev server.
Verify it actually renders:
After browse open + browse snapshot, check that the accessibility tree contains real page content (navigation, headings, interactive elements) — not just an error overlay or empty body. Next.js dev servers can return HTTP 200 while showing a full-screen build error dialog. If the snapshot is empty or dominated by an error dialog, the server is broken — fix the build before testing.
Phase 4: Generate test plan
For each changed area, plan both happy path AND adversarial tests:
Test Plan (based on git diff)
=============================
Changed: src/components/SignupForm.tsx (added email validation)
1. [happy] Valid email submits successfully
URL: http://localhost:3000/signup
Steps: fill valid email → submit → verify success message appears
2. [adversarial] Invalid email shows error
Steps: fill "not-an-email" → submit → verify error message appears
3. [adversarial] Empty form submission
Steps: click submit without filling anything → verify error, no crash
4. [adversarial] XSS in email field
Steps: fill "<script>alert(1)</script>" → submit → verify sanitized/rejected
5. [adversarial] Rapid double-submit
Steps: click submit twice quickly → verify no duplicate submission
6. [adversarial] Keyboard-only flow
Steps: Tab to email → type → Tab to submit → Enter → verify successPhase 5: Execute tests
browse stop 2>/dev/null
mkdir -p .context/ui-test-screenshots
# localhost/default QA → clean, reproducible local run
browse open http://localhost:3000 --localFor each test, follow the before/after pattern:
# Navigate
browse open http://localhost:3000/path --local
browse wait load
# BEFORE snapshot
browse snapshot
# Note the current state: elements, refs, text
# ACT
browse click @0-ref
# or: browse fill "selector" "value"
# or: browse type "text"
# or: browse press Enter
# AFTER snapshot
browse snapshot
# Compare against BEFORE: what changed?
# ASSERT with marker
# STEP_PASS|step-id|evidence OR STEP_FAIL|step-id|expected → actualPhase 6: Report results
## UI Test Results
### STEP_PASS|valid-email-submit|status "Thanks!" appeared at @0-42 after submit
- URL: http://localhost:3000/signup
- Before: form with email input @0-3, submit button @0-7
- Action: filled "[email protected]", clicked @0-7
- After: form replaced by status element with "Thanks! We'll be in touch."
### STEP_FAIL|double-submit|expected single submission → form submitted twice|.context/ui-test-screenshots/double-submit.png
- URL: http://localhost:3000/signup
- Before: form with submit button @0-7
- Action: clicked @0-7 twice rapidly
- After: two success toasts appeared, suggesting duplicate submission
- Screenshot: .context/ui-test-screenshots/double-submit.png
- Suggestion: disable submit button after first click, or debounce the handler
---
**Summary: 4/6 passed, 2 failed**
Failed: double-submit, xss-sanitization
Screenshots saved to `.context/ui-test-screenshots/` — open any failed step's screenshot to see the broken state.Always browse stop when done.
Phase 7: Generate HTML report
After producing the text report, generate a standalone HTML report that a reviewer can open in a browser. The report embeds screenshots inline (base64) so it works as a single file — no external dependencies.
Why: Text reports are good for the agent conversation, but reviewers (PMs, designers, other engineers) want a visual artifact they can open, scan, and share. Screenshots inline make failures immediately obvious.
How to generate
Read the HTML template at references/report-template.html
Build the report by replacing the template placeholders with actual test data:
| Placeholder | Value |
|---|---|
{{TITLE}} | Report title for <title> tag (e.g., "UI Test: PR #1234 — OAuth Settings") |
{{TITLE_HTML}} | Report title for the visible <h1>. If a PR URL is available, wrap the PR reference in an <a> tag so it's clickable (e.g., UI Test: <a href="https://github.com/org/repo/pull/1234">PR #1234</a> — OAuth Settings). If no URL, use plain text same as {{TITLE}}. |
{{META}} | One-line context: date, app URL, user, branch |
{{TOTAL_TESTS}} | Total STEP_PASS + STEP_FAIL count |
{{AGENT_COUNT}} | Number of sub-agents that ran |
{{PASS_COUNT}} | Number of STEP_PASS |
{{FAIL_COUNT}} | Number of STEP_FAIL |
{{PASS_RATE}} | Integer percentage (e.g., "92") |
{{RATE_CLASS}} | good (≥90%), warn (70–89%), bad (<70%) |
{{FAILURES_SECTION}} | HTML for failed test cards (see below) |
{{PASSES_SECTION}} | HTML for passed test cards (see below) |
For each test result, generate a
<details>card. Failed tests should be open by default so reviewers see them immediately:
<!-- Failed test card (open by default) -->
<div class="section">
<h2>Failures <span class="count">{{FAIL_COUNT}}</span></h2>
<details class="test-card fail" open>
<summary>
<span class="badge fail">FAIL</span>
<span class="step-id">step-id-here</span>
<span class="evidence">expected → actual</span>
</summary>
<div class="body">
<dl>
<dt>URL</dt><dd>http://localhost:3000/path</dd>
<dt>Action</dt><dd>What was done</dd>
<dt>Expected</dt><dd>What should have happened</dd>
<dt>Actual</dt><dd>What happened instead</dd>
</dl>
<div class="suggestion">Fix: description of suggested fix</div>
<div class="screenshot">
<img src="data:image/png;base64,..." alt="Screenshot of failure">
<div class="caption">step-id.png — captured at moment of failure</div>
</div>
</div>
</details>
</div>
<!-- Passed test card (collapsed by default) -->
<div class="section">
<h2>Passed <span class="count">{{PASS_COUNT}}</span></h2>
<details class="test-card pass">
<summary>
<span class="badge pass">PASS</span>
<span class="step-id">step-id-here</span>
<span class="evidence">evidence summary</span>
</summary>
<div class="body">
<dl>
<dt>URL</dt><dd>http://localhost:3000/path</dd>
<dt>Evidence</dt><dd>What was observed</dd>
</dl>
</div>
</details>
</div>Embed screenshots as base64 so the HTML is fully self-contained:
# Convert screenshot to base64 data URI
base64 -i .context/ui-test-screenshots/step-id.png | tr -d '\n'
# Use as: src="data:image/png;base64,<output>"Read each screenshot file referenced in STEP_FAIL markers, base64-encode it, and embed it as an <img src="data:image/png;base64,..."> in the corresponding test card. For STEP_PASS, only embed a screenshot if one was explicitly taken (e.g., baseline screenshots).
Write the final HTML to
.context/ui-test-report.html:
# Write the generated HTML
cat > .context/ui-test-report.html << 'REPORT_EOF'
<!DOCTYPE html>
...generated report...
REPORT_EOF
# Open it for the reviewer
open .context/ui-test-report.html # macOS
# xdg-open .context/ui-test-report.html # LinuxTell the user:
Report saved to .context/ui-test-report.htmland offer to open it.
Rules:
Failures section comes before passes — reviewers care about what's broken first
Failed cards are
openby default; passed cards are collapsedEvery STEP_FAIL card MUST have an embedded screenshot — if the screenshot file is missing, note it in the card
Include the suggestion/fix in each failure card if one was provided
The report must work offline — no CDN links, no external assets
Keep the HTML under 5MB — if screenshots push it over, reduce image quality or skip baseline screenshots for passes
Adversarial Test Patterns
Apply these to every interactive element you test. Read references/adversarial-patterns.md for the full pattern library (forms, modals, navigation, error states, keyboard accessibility).
Deterministic Checks
These produce structured data, not judgment calls. Use them as the strongest form of assertion.
| Check | What it catches | Assertion |
|---|---|---|
| axe-core | WCAG violations | violations.length === 0 |
| Console errors | Runtime exceptions, failed requests | empty error array |
| Broken images | Missing/failed image loads | no images with naturalWidth === 0 |
| Form labels | Inputs without accessible labels | every input has hasLabel: true |
For the exact browse eval recipes, read references/browser-recipes.md.
Workflow B: Exploratory Testing
No diff, no plan — just open the app and try to break it. Use this when the user says "test my app", "find bugs", or "QA this site."
Approach
Discover the app — read
package.jsonto detect the framework, then open the root URL and snapshot to see what's thereNavigate everything — click through nav links, visit every reachable page, note what exists
Test what you find — for each page, apply the adversarial patterns below (forms, modals, navigation, keyboard, error states)
Run deterministic checks — axe-core, console errors, broken images, form labels on every page
Report findings — use STEP_PASS/STEP_FAIL markers, include reproduction steps for failures
Don't try to be systematic about coverage. Just explore like a user would, but with the intent to break things. The agent is good at this — let it roam.
Tips for exploratory runs
Start with the homepage, then follow the navigation naturally
Try the 404 page (
/does-not-exist) — is it custom or default?Look for empty states (pages with no data)
Test forms with garbage input before valid input
Check mobile viewport (375px) on every page — does it overflow?
If the app has auth, use cookie-sync first
Workflow C: Parallel Testing
Run independent test groups concurrently using named browse sessions (BROWSE_SESSION=<name>). Each session gets its own browser. Works with both local and remote mode.
Use when testing multiple pages or categories and you want faster wall clock time.
Read references/parallel-testing.md for the full workflow: session setup, agent fan-out, cookie-sync for auth, and result merging.
Design Consistency
Check whether changed UI matches the rest of the app visually. Read references/design-consistency.md when doing visual or design checks.
Test Categories
| Category | How | Assertion type |
|---|---|---|
| Accessibility | axe-core + keyboard nav | Deterministic (violation count) |
| Visual Quality | Screenshot + heuristic evaluation | Visual judgment (weakest — note specifics) |
| Responsive | Viewport sweep + screenshots | Visual + deterministic (overflow check) |
| Console Health | Console capture eval | Deterministic (error count) |
| UX Heuristics | Snapshot + Laws of UX + Nielsen's | Structured judgment (cite specific heuristic) |
| Error States | Navigate to empty/error states | Before/after comparison |
| Data Display | Snapshot on tables/dashboards | Element match (column count, formatting) |
| Design Consistency | Screenshot baseline + changed page comparison | Visual judgment (cite specific property) |
| Exploratory | Free navigation + adversarial testing | Before/after + judgment |
Reference guides (load on demand):
Adversarial patterns — references/adversarial-patterns.md — load when testing forms, modals, navigation, or keyboard a11y
Browser recipes — references/browser-recipes.md — load when running deterministic checks (axe-core, console, images, form labels)
Exploratory testing — references/exploratory-testing.md — load for Workflow B (no diff, open exploration)
UX heuristics — references/ux-heuristics.md — load when evaluating UX quality or citing specific heuristics
Design system — references/design-system.example.md — template for users to customize
Design consistency — references/design-consistency.md — load when doing visual consistency checks
Parallel testing — references/parallel-testing.md — load for Workflow C (concurrent sessions)
Report template — references/report-template.html — HTML template for Phase 7 report generation
For worked examples with exact commands, read EXAMPLES.md if you need to see the assertion protocol in action.
Best Practices
Be adversarial — try to break things, don't just confirm they work
Every assertion needs evidence — snapshot ref, eval result, or before/after diff
Before/after for every interaction — snapshot, act, snapshot, compare
Screenshot every failure —
browse screenshotimmediately on STEP_FAIL, save to.context/ui-test-screenshots/<step-id>.pngDeterministic checks first — axe-core, console errors, form labels before visual judgment
For localhost, start with clean local mode — pass
--localon the firstbrowse openfor reproducible runs; use--auto-connectonly when existing local state is requiredAlways
browse stopwhen done — for parallel runs, stop every named sessionReport failures with reproduction steps — action, expected, actual, screenshot path, suggestion
Parallelize independent tests — use Workflow C with named sessions when testing multiple pages or categories on a deployed site
Troubleshooting
"No active page":
browse stop, retry. For zombies:pkill -f "browse.*daemon"Dev server not responding:
curl http://localhost:<port>— ask user to start itbrowse evalwithawaitfails: Use.then()instead —browse evaldoesn't support top-level awaitElement ref not found:
browse snapshotagain — refs change on page updateBlank snapshot:
browse wait loadorbrowse wait selector ".expected"before snapshottingSPA deep links 404: Navigate to
/first, then click throughRemote auth fails: Re-run cookie-sync with
--context <id>, try--verifiedParallel session conflicts: Ensure every
browsecommand usesBROWSE_SESSION=<name>— without it, commands go to the default sessionSession not stopping:
BROWSE_SESSION=<name> browse stop. For zombies:pkill -f "browse.*<name>.*daemon"
Files
- ATTRIBUTION.mdAdded by AutoGineer916 B
- EXAMPLES.md23.4 KiB
- LICENSE.txt1.0 KiB
- README.md4.0 KiB
- SKILL.md28.2 KiB
- references/adversarial-patterns.md3.6 KiB
- references/browser-recipes.md6.5 KiB
- references/design-consistency.md2.5 KiB
- references/design-system.example.md4.0 KiB
- references/exploratory-testing.md2.9 KiB
- references/parallel-testing.md7.2 KiB
- references/report-template.html9.3 KiB
- references/ux-heuristics.md18.0 KiB
Requirements and compatibility
Works with: Claude Code, Claude apps, OpenAI Codex, GitHub Copilot, Cursor, Gemini CLI, Kiro, OpenCode, Goose, Amp, Roo Code, JetBrains Junie, Factory Droid, Devin (ex-Windsurf), Mistral Vibe, OpenHands, Letta
“Works with” means the tool reads the open Agent Skills format; a skill written for one tool may use features others lack.
Needs: Declares allowed tools, Needs network access, Needs a command-line tool, Needs Node.js
The author says: Requires the browse CLI (`npm install -g browse`). For remote testing: BROWSERBASE_API_KEY and cookie-sync skill.
Security
What our scanner noticed· Low risk
- Instructions that use the network
A static scan is not a guarantee. Skills are third-party content: review a skill before you let an agent use it.
Attribution and licence
- Created by
- browserbase
- Publisher
- Browserbase (Official)
- Source
- browserbase/skills · skills/ui-test · commit 6811ca3
- Licence
- MIT License (redistribution allowed)
- ATTRIBUTION.md (written by AutoGineer)
- Synced
AutoGineer is not affiliated with or endorsed by browserbase.
Download ZIP
The ZIP holds the skill’s files, its licence files and an ATTRIBUTION.md. Download ui-test.zip