review

Original：🇺🇸 English

Translated

Review Playwright tests for quality. Use when user says "review tests", "check test quality", "audit tests", "improve tests", "test code review", or "playwright best practices check".

4installs

Sourcealirezarezvani/claude-skills

Added on2026-03-06

NPX Install

npx skill4agent add alirezarezvani/claude-skills review

SKILL.md Content

View Translation Comparison →

Review Playwright Tests

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)