SKILLEMALL.ai

AC e2e-verify

Verify a change end-to-end in a real browser, routed by one question — who needs this check to run again? Ephemeral checks run via Expect (millionco/expect) or browser-use (AI agent driving headless Chromium — references/browser-use.md) when installed, else Claude driving the browser directly; regression-critical flows (auth, money, signup, checkout, deletion) get durable Playwright tests under write-tests discipline. Evidence rule either way — an AI-walked flow yields "no issues found in the paths walked" with observations quoted, never "e2e passes". Safety gate: never production, never real user cookies. Use this skill whenever the user says "verify this in the browser", "test it end to end", "test my web app", "e2e test this", "write playwright tests", "run expect", "run browser-use", "smoke test the UI", or "/e2e-verify" — even if they don't name the skill. Not for native mobile (maestro-mobile-test), unit/integration authoring (write-tests), or debugging a failing e2e test (diagnose).

ClawHub Agent Skills author: Dennis Rongo v1.0.1 MIT-0 6 files · 1 script body ≈ 2 471 tokens Open the sourceclawhub.ai analyzed 2 d ago

Verify a change end-to-end in a real browser, routed by one question — who needs this check to run again?

As a process C 61/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, running it twice

AnalyzerPlaywrightSoftware developmentAI and agentstype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
JSON
Technical rating
A
96/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
90
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
61/100
Has gaps
Result and completion w 14
0
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Running it twice w 4
30
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

How to improve

    For the model run — optional
    • Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
    • A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.

    Guard findings · 0

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Files scanned: 6. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    ✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec

    Process rating: all ten parameters 61/100

    • 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
    • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 30Running it twice. 8 mutating operations with no state check
    • 55Failures and branches. 1 branches
    • 60Tools and files. Uses tools (web, python) that frontmatter does not declare
    • 100Steps. 32 steps
    • 100When it triggers. States when to use and when not to
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2471 tokens
    • 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
    • medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing

    Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.

    Quality signals

    • +3Description length 1004: 120–800 characters recommended
    • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
    • -2localhost URLs: will not work for another user
    • -214 emoji in the instructions: noise for the model
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +5Description quotes 11 example trigger phrases
    • +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
    • +4Structure: 11 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 32 items
    • +4Has examples (0 code blocks)
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (1 of 1)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 90.

    External checks

    ClawHub: suspicious
    The skill is mostly aligned with browser-based web testing, but it has review-worthy risks around unsafe .env loading and conflicting guidance about production use.
    LLM: suspicious (high) · 28 Aug 2026