Creator · browserbase
Last updated · Sep 2, 2026
AI-powered adversarial UI testing via the browse CLI. Analyzes git diffs to test only what changed, or explores the full app to find bugs. Tests functional correctness, accessibility, responsive layout, and UX heuristics. Use when the user asks to test UI changes, QA a pull reque
Creator · browserbase
Last updated · Sep 2, 2026
AI-powered adversarial UI testing via the browse CLI. Analyzes git diffs to test only what changed, or explores the full app to find bugs. Tests functional correctness, accessibility, responsive layout, and UX heuristics. Use when the user asks to test UI changes, QA a pull reque
Creator · browserbase
Last updated · Sep 2, 2026
AI-powered adversarial UI testing via the browse CLI. Analyzes git diffs to test only what changed, or explores the full app to find bugs. Tests functional correctness, accessibility, responsive layout, and UX heuristics. Use when the user asks to test UI changes, QA a pull reque
Creator · browserbase
Last updated · Sep 2, 2026
AI-powered adversarial UI testing via the browse CLI. Analyzes git diffs to test only what changed, or explores the full app to find bugs. Tests functional correctness, accessibility, responsive layout, and UX heuristics. Use when the user asks to test UI changes, QA a pull reque
Sandbox only
Install targets
Codex install prompt
Install the "ui-test" agent skill from https://github.com/browserbase/skills/tree/main/skills/ui-test. Read its SKILL.md or equivalent instructions first, install only the files needed for this workspace, and summarize any required setup before using it. Skill purpose: AI-powered adversarial UI testing via the browse CLI. Analyzes git diffs to test only what changed, or explores the full app to find bugs. Tests functional correctness, accessibility, responsive layout, and UX heuristics. Use when the user asks to test UI changes, QA a pull request, audit accessibility, or run exploratory testing. Supports local browser (localhost) and remote Browserbase (deployed sites). After the install attempt, report the result to https://www.openagentskill.com/api/agent/outcome with POST JSON {"event_id":"install_<unique-id>","skill_slug":"browserbase-ui-test","task":"Install ui-test","agent":"codex","outcome":"success","install_used":true}. Replace event_id with a unique value and outcome with success or failed. Report success only after the skill is installed and a minimal verification passes.Supply asset profile
Code review, repo analysis, testing, CI, GitHub, DevOps, and developer workflow skills.
Scenario
Testing and QA
I need my agent to test a web app, reproduce bugs, and verify fixes.
Agent fit
Claude Code + Browser agents + CLI
Codex, Claude Code, Cursor, CLI, or custom agents.
Install
Ready
npx skills add browserbase/skills --skill ui-test
Maintenance
fresh
4d since push
Risk
Needs review
Dependency or permission surface needs review
GitHub quality
3.7K
83/100 Quality · 72/100 Trust
Coverage tags
Review notes
Dependency or permission surface needs review · Permission surface may require sandboxing
Agent adoption scorecard
These scores combine public repository metadata, OpenAgentSkill review signals, maintenance freshness, and install readiness. They are a shortlist signal, not a replacement for human review.
Quality
StrongSolid option that is likely worth shortlisting for production workflows.
Trust
Sandbox onlyUseful candidate with missing or mixed trust signals. Keep it in an isolated workspace until the outcome loop proves task fit.
Audit
Needs reviewA machine-readable review of install readiness, security metadata, maintenance, and adoption risk.
OpenAgentSkill Trust Score v5
Run only in a sandbox and compare close alternatives before using it for real work.
Stars
3.7K GitHub stars
Repo activity
3.7K stars, 237 forks
Maintenance
4d since push
License
MIT
Install
npx skills add browserbase/skills --skill ui-test
Install safety
Agent-readable metadata
Use this block or the embedded JSON to decide whether an agent should install this skill, choose an alternative, or ask for human review first.
Suited tasks
Suited agents
Install decision
Trust and risk
Outcome loop
Install command
npx skills add browserbase/skills --skill ui-testDo not use when
Agent safety v2
Sparse or mixed signals. Useful for discovery, but not for autonomous installation.
Test manually in an isolated workspace and compare against safer alternatives.
high
Skill metadata references terminal, CLI, shell, subprocess, or command execution workflows.
medium
Skill may drive a browser or interact with web pages.
medium
Skill likely fetches remote pages, APIs, repositories, or external services.
medium
Skill may read or write project files, documents, generated artifacts, or local workspace state.
Agent resolve plan
The Resolve API returns the selected skill, alternatives, safety policy, audit notes, install target, and copy-paste prompt an agent can follow without scraping this page.
Open JSON
/api/agent/resolve?task=Use%20ui-test%20for%20an%20agent%20workflow&agent=codex&max_risk=medium
Resolve text
/api/agent/resolve?task=Use%20ui-test%20for%20an%20agent%20workflow&agent=codex&max_risk=medium&format=text
Install handoff
/api/skills/browserbase-ui-test/install
Agent should check
Copy prompt
Task: Use ui-test in this workspace.
Resolve first: https://www.openagentskill.com/api/agent/resolve?task=Use%20ui-test%20for%20an%20agent%20workflow&agent=codex&max_risk=medium
Review install handoff: https://www.openagentskill.com/api/skills/browserbase-ui-test/install
Install command: npx skills add browserbase/skills --skill ui-test
Before running it, summarize audit warnings, required permissions, and the fallback skill if install is risky.Agent handoff
Use the public install endpoint to fetch the command, safety checklist, target prompts, and canonical links for this skill.
Install handoff
/api/skills/browserbase-ui-test/install
LLM text format
/api/skills/browserbase-ui-test/install?format=text
Find alternatives
/api/skills/search?q=ui-test&limit=3
Agent prompt
Use ui-test for this task. Review https://www.openagentskill.com/api/skills/browserbase-ui-test/install, then install with: npx skills add browserbase/skills --skill ui-testRegistry metadata
This page exposes the same decision, trust, audit, use-case, and install signals through the Registry API, so agents can rank this skill without scraping the UI.
Manifest
/api/registry/manifest/browserbase-ui-test
LLM text
/api/registry/manifest/browserbase-ui-test?format=text
Install alias
/api/registry/install/browserbase-ui-test
Recommend
/api/registry/recommend?task=Use%20ui-test%20in%20an%20agent%20workflow&limit=3
Agent fit
Testing and QA
Use-case tags
Platforms
Claude Code, Browser agents
Audit report
A machine-readable review of install readiness, security metadata, maintenance, and adoption risk.
Agent decision cockpit
Use this as a leading candidate, then validate the README and install path in your own agent stack.
Role in stack
Primary pick
Primary fit
Testing and QA
Trust label
Production-ready
Install path
Command ready
Use when
Evidence
review first
Implementation path
Trust profile
Useful candidate with missing or mixed trust signals. Keep it in an isolated workspace until the outcome loop proves task fit.
GitHub adoption
PASS3.7K GitHub stars
Stars/forks activity
INFO3.7K stars, 237 forks; issue activity unavailable in current metadata
Recent maintenance
PASS4d since push
License clarity
PASSMIT
Good signals
Review before install
Recommended action
Run only in a sandbox and compare close alternatives before using it for real work.
Quality profile
Solid option that is likely worth shortlisting for production workflows.
Workflow fit
Verify behavior
I need my agent to test a web app, reproduce bugs, and verify fixes.
Build and ship code
I need a coding agent that can understand a repository, edit code, and review pull requests.
Manage repositories
I need my agent to triage GitHub issues, review pull requests, and summarize repository changes.
Workflow fit
Inspect, patch, and verify code
A workflow for software agents that inspect repositories, review pull requests, generate tests, and turn findings into shippable patches.
Operate and verify web apps
A workflow for agents that navigate products, fill forms, take screenshots, and verify real user flows across web applications.
Design, build, test, and ship interfaces
A practical workflow for agents that turn product briefs or Figma designs into polished frontend code, review the result, test it in a browser, and prepare a safe deployment.
Alternative shortlist
Similar skills that may fit this task.
Wazuh - The Open Source Security Platform. Unified XDR and SIEM protection for endpoints and cloud workloads.
🕵️♂️ Collect a dossier on a person by username from 3000+ sites
Nuclei is a fast, customizable vulnerability scanner powered by the global security community and built on a simple YAML-based DSL, enabling collaboration to tackle trending vulnerabilities on the internet. It helps you find vulnerabilities in your applications, APIs, networks, DNS, and cloud configurations.
Infisical is the open-source platform for secrets, certificates, and privileged access management.
--- name: ui-test description: "AI-powered adversarial UI testing via the browse CLI. Analyzes git diffs to test only what changed, or explores the full app to find bugs. Tests functional correctness, accessibility, responsive layout, and UX heuristics. Use when the user asks to test UI changes, QA a pull request, audit accessibility, or run exploratory testing. Supports local browser (localhost) and remote Browserbase (deployed sites)." license: MIT metadata: author: browserbase version: "0.4.0" allowed-tools: Bash Read Glob Grep Agent compatibility: "Requires the browse CLI (`npm install -g browse`). For remote testing: BROWSERBASE_API_KEY and cookie-sync skill." ---
# 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: 2 ```
**The 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 like `homepage-cta`, `form-validation-error`, `modal-cancel` - `evidence`: what you observed that proves the step passed (element ref, text content, URL, eval result) - `expected → actual`: what you expected vs what you got - `screenshot-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:
```bash # 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>.png ```
Setup the screenshot directory at the start of any test run:
```bash mkdir -p .context/ui-test-screenshots ```
**Rules:** - 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 agents - For 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)
1. **Deterministic check** (strongest) — `browse eval` returns structured data you can inspect. Examples: axe-core violation count, `document.title`, form field value, console error array, element count. 2. **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. 3. **Before/after comparison** — snapshot before action, act, snapshot after. Verify the tree changed in the expected way (element appeared, disappeared, text changed). 4. **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:
```bash # 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.png ```
## Setup
```bash which browse || npm install -g browse ```
### Avoid 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): ```json { "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)
```bash browse open http://localhost:3000 --local ```
`browse 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)
```bash # 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_RELEASE ```
Cookie-sync flags: `--domains`, `--context`, `--verified`, `--proxy "City,ST,US"`
## Workflow A: Diff-Driven Testing
### Phase 1: Analyze the diff
```bash git diff --name-only HEAD~1 # or: git diff --name-only / git diff --name-only main...HEAD git diff HEAD~1 -- <file> # read actual changes ```
Categorize changed files:
| File pattern | UI impact | What to test | |-------------|-----------|-----------
Source provenance
Decision snapshot
3,707 GitHub stars
Audit
Install and adoption review
Agent-proven evidence
Outcome reports after resolve, review, install, and one narrow run.
No agent outcome data yet. The first agent run can report success, setup needs, risk blocks, failure, or not-relevant through /api/agent/outcome.
Install
Free and open source. Review the report before installing into production agents.
Growth loop
Scenario-led draft for ui-test, ready for a manual X post.
A practical pick for a web workflow: ui-test: AI-powered adversarial UI testing via the browse CLI. Analyzes git diffs to test only what changed, or explores the full ap... 3.7K stars https://www.openagentskill.com/skills/browserbase-ui-test?ref=x
Listing + install path for ui-test: https://www.openagentskill.com/skills/browserbase-ui-test?ref=x Install: npx skills add browserbase/skills --skill ui-test
Listing source
This listing was indexed from public sources and is not marked official until a maintainer claim is approved.
Attribution links to the public repository or creator profile. Creators can claim the listing to update ownership signals.
Claim this skillOwner claim
This Registry indexed listing is attributed to browserbase but is not marked official yet. Claim it to add a verified owner signal and make future launch, install, and audit updates easier to trust.
Creator backlink kit
Show the canonical listing, current trust and audit signals, and real Agent-Proven evidence where developers evaluate the repository.
[](https://www.openagentskill.com/skills/browserbase-ui-test?ref=github&utm_source=github&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=creator_badge)
[](https://www.openagentskill.com/skills/browserbase-ui-test?ref=github&utm_source=github&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=creator_badge)
[](https://www.openagentskill.com/skills/browserbase-ui-test/audit)
[](https://www.openagentskill.com/skills/browserbase-ui-test?ref=github&utm_source=github&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=creator_badge)browserbase
@browserbase
Share whether this skill looks useful for your agent workflow. Aggregated feedback improves rankings over time.
Sandbox only
Wazuh
Wazuh - The Open Source Security Platform. Unified XDR and SIEM protection for endpoints and cloud workloads.
16.3K StarsMaigret
🕵️♂️ Collect a dossier on a person by username from 3000+ sites
32.9K StarsNuclei
Nuclei is a fast, customizable vulnerability scanner powered by the global security community and built on a simple YAML-based DSL, enabling collaboration to tackle trending vulnerabilities on the internet. It helps you find vulnerabilities in your applications, APIs, networks, DNS, and cloud configurations.
29.2K StarsInfisical
Infisical is the open-source platform for secrets, certificates, and privileged access management.
27.4K StarsSandbox only
Install targets
Codex install prompt
Install the "ui-test" agent skill from https://github.com/browserbase/skills/tree/main/skills/ui-test. Read its SKILL.md or equivalent instructions first, install only the files needed for this workspace, and summarize any required setup before using it. Skill purpose: AI-powered adversarial UI testing via the browse CLI. Analyzes git diffs to test only what changed, or explores the full app to find bugs. Tests functional correctness, accessibility, responsive layout, and UX heuristics. Use when the user asks to test UI changes, QA a pull request, audit accessibility, or run exploratory testing. Supports local browser (localhost) and remote Browserbase (deployed sites). After the install attempt, report the result to https://www.openagentskill.com/api/agent/outcome with POST JSON {"event_id":"install_<unique-id>","skill_slug":"browserbase-ui-test","task":"Install ui-test","agent":"codex","outcome":"success","install_used":true}. Replace event_id with a unique value and outcome with success or failed. Report success only after the skill is installed and a minimal verification passes.Supply asset profile
Code review, repo analysis, testing, CI, GitHub, DevOps, and developer workflow skills.
Scenario
Testing and QA
I need my agent to test a web app, reproduce bugs, and verify fixes.
Agent fit
Claude Code + Browser agents + CLI
Codex, Claude Code, Cursor, CLI, or custom agents.
Install
Ready
npx skills add browserbase/skills --skill ui-test
Maintenance
fresh
4d since push
Risk
Needs review
Dependency or permission surface needs review
GitHub quality
3.7K
83/100 Quality · 72/100 Trust
Coverage tags
Review notes
Dependency or permission surface needs review · Permission surface may require sandboxing
Agent adoption scorecard
These scores combine public repository metadata, OpenAgentSkill review signals, maintenance freshness, and install readiness. They are a shortlist signal, not a replacement for human review.
Quality
StrongSolid option that is likely worth shortlisting for production workflows.
Trust
Sandbox onlyUseful candidate with missing or mixed trust signals. Keep it in an isolated workspace until the outcome loop proves task fit.
Audit
Needs reviewA machine-readable review of install readiness, security metadata, maintenance, and adoption risk.
OpenAgentSkill Trust Score v5
Run only in a sandbox and compare close alternatives before using it for real work.
Stars
3.7K GitHub stars
Repo activity
3.7K stars, 237 forks
Maintenance
4d since push
License
MIT
Install
npx skills add browserbase/skills --skill ui-test
Install safety
Agent-readable metadata
Use this block or the embedded JSON to decide whether an agent should install this skill, choose an alternative, or ask for human review first.
Suited tasks
Suited agents
Install decision
Trust and risk
Outcome loop
Install command
npx skills add browserbase/skills --skill ui-testDo not use when
Agent safety v2
Sparse or mixed signals. Useful for discovery, but not for autonomous installation.
Test manually in an isolated workspace and compare against safer alternatives.
high
Skill metadata references terminal, CLI, shell, subprocess, or command execution workflows.
medium
Skill may drive a browser or interact with web pages.
medium
Skill likely fetches remote pages, APIs, repositories, or external services.
medium
Skill may read or write project files, documents, generated artifacts, or local workspace state.
Agent resolve plan
The Resolve API returns the selected skill, alternatives, safety policy, audit notes, install target, and copy-paste prompt an agent can follow without scraping this page.
Open JSON
/api/agent/resolve?task=Use%20ui-test%20for%20an%20agent%20workflow&agent=codex&max_risk=medium
Resolve text
/api/agent/resolve?task=Use%20ui-test%20for%20an%20agent%20workflow&agent=codex&max_risk=medium&format=text
Install handoff
/api/skills/browserbase-ui-test/install
Agent should check
Copy prompt
Task: Use ui-test in this workspace.
Resolve first: https://www.openagentskill.com/api/agent/resolve?task=Use%20ui-test%20for%20an%20agent%20workflow&agent=codex&max_risk=medium
Review install handoff: https://www.openagentskill.com/api/skills/browserbase-ui-test/install
Install command: npx skills add browserbase/skills --skill ui-test
Before running it, summarize audit warnings, required permissions, and the fallback skill if install is risky.Agent handoff
Use the public install endpoint to fetch the command, safety checklist, target prompts, and canonical links for this skill.
Install handoff
/api/skills/browserbase-ui-test/install
LLM text format
/api/skills/browserbase-ui-test/install?format=text
Find alternatives
/api/skills/search?q=ui-test&limit=3
Agent prompt
Use ui-test for this task. Review https://www.openagentskill.com/api/skills/browserbase-ui-test/install, then install with: npx skills add browserbase/skills --skill ui-testRegistry metadata
This page exposes the same decision, trust, audit, use-case, and install signals through the Registry API, so agents can rank this skill without scraping the UI.
Manifest
/api/registry/manifest/browserbase-ui-test
LLM text
/api/registry/manifest/browserbase-ui-test?format=text
Install alias
/api/registry/install/browserbase-ui-test
Recommend
/api/registry/recommend?task=Use%20ui-test%20in%20an%20agent%20workflow&limit=3
Agent fit
Testing and QA
Use-case tags
Platforms
Claude Code, Browser agents
Audit report
A machine-readable review of install readiness, security metadata, maintenance, and adoption risk.
Agent decision cockpit
Use this as a leading candidate, then validate the README and install path in your own agent stack.
Role in stack
Primary pick
Primary fit
Testing and QA
Trust label
Production-ready
Install path
Command ready
Use when
Evidence
review first
Implementation path
Trust profile
Useful candidate with missing or mixed trust signals. Keep it in an isolated workspace until the outcome loop proves task fit.
GitHub adoption
PASS3.7K GitHub stars
Stars/forks activity
INFO3.7K stars, 237 forks; issue activity unavailable in current metadata
Recent maintenance
PASS4d since push
License clarity
PASSMIT
Good signals
Review before install
Recommended action
Run only in a sandbox and compare close alternatives before using it for real work.
Quality profile
Solid option that is likely worth shortlisting for production workflows.
Workflow fit
Verify behavior
I need my agent to test a web app, reproduce bugs, and verify fixes.
Build and ship code
I need a coding agent that can understand a repository, edit code, and review pull requests.
Manage repositories
I need my agent to triage GitHub issues, review pull requests, and summarize repository changes.
Workflow fit
Inspect, patch, and verify code
A workflow for software agents that inspect repositories, review pull requests, generate tests, and turn findings into shippable patches.
Operate and verify web apps
A workflow for agents that navigate products, fill forms, take screenshots, and verify real user flows across web applications.
Design, build, test, and ship interfaces
A practical workflow for agents that turn product briefs or Figma designs into polished frontend code, review the result, test it in a browser, and prepare a safe deployment.
Alternative shortlist
Similar skills that may fit this task.
Wazuh - The Open Source Security Platform. Unified XDR and SIEM protection for endpoints and cloud workloads.
🕵️♂️ Collect a dossier on a person by username from 3000+ sites
Nuclei is a fast, customizable vulnerability scanner powered by the global security community and built on a simple YAML-based DSL, enabling collaboration to tackle trending vulnerabilities on the internet. It helps you find vulnerabilities in your applications, APIs, networks, DNS, and cloud configurations.
Infisical is the open-source platform for secrets, certificates, and privileged access management.
--- name: ui-test description: "AI-powered adversarial UI testing via the browse CLI. Analyzes git diffs to test only what changed, or explores the full app to find bugs. Tests functional correctness, accessibility, responsive layout, and UX heuristics. Use when the user asks to test UI changes, QA a pull request, audit accessibility, or run exploratory testing. Supports local browser (localhost) and remote Browserbase (deployed sites)." license: MIT metadata: author: browserbase version: "0.4.0" allowed-tools: Bash Read Glob Grep Agent compatibility: "Requires the browse CLI (`npm install -g browse`). For remote testing: BROWSERBASE_API_KEY and cookie-sync skill." ---
# 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: 2 ```
**The 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 like `homepage-cta`, `form-validation-error`, `modal-cancel` - `evidence`: what you observed that proves the step passed (element ref, text content, URL, eval result) - `expected → actual`: what you expected vs what you got - `screenshot-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:
```bash # 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>.png ```
Setup the screenshot directory at the start of any test run:
```bash mkdir -p .context/ui-test-screenshots ```
**Rules:** - 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 agents - For 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)
1. **Deterministic check** (strongest) — `browse eval` returns structured data you can inspect. Examples: axe-core violation count, `document.title`, form field value, console error array, element count. 2. **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. 3. **Before/after comparison** — snapshot before action, act, snapshot after. Verify the tree changed in the expected way (element appeared, disappeared, text changed). 4. **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:
```bash # 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.png ```
## Setup
```bash which browse || npm install -g browse ```
### Avoid 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): ```json { "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)
```bash browse open http://localhost:3000 --local ```
`browse 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)
```bash # 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_RELEASE ```
Cookie-sync flags: `--domains`, `--context`, `--verified`, `--proxy "City,ST,US"`
## Workflow A: Diff-Driven Testing
### Phase 1: Analyze the diff
```bash git diff --name-only HEAD~1 # or: git diff --name-only / git diff --name-only main...HEAD git diff HEAD~1 -- <file> # read actual changes ```
Categorize changed files:
| File pattern | UI impact | What to test | |-------------|-----------|-----------
Source provenance
Decision snapshot
3,707 GitHub stars
Audit
Install and adoption review
Agent-proven evidence
Outcome reports after resolve, review, install, and one narrow run.
No agent outcome data yet. The first agent run can report success, setup needs, risk blocks, failure, or not-relevant through /api/agent/outcome.
Install
Free and open source. Review the report before installing into production agents.
Growth loop
Scenario-led draft for ui-test, ready for a manual X post.
A practical pick for a web workflow: ui-test: AI-powered adversarial UI testing via the browse CLI. Analyzes git diffs to test only what changed, or explores the full ap... 3.7K stars https://www.openagentskill.com/skills/browserbase-ui-test?ref=x
Listing + install path for ui-test: https://www.openagentskill.com/skills/browserbase-ui-test?ref=x Install: npx skills add browserbase/skills --skill ui-test
Listing source
This listing was indexed from public sources and is not marked official until a maintainer claim is approved.
Attribution links to the public repository or creator profile. Creators can claim the listing to update ownership signals.
Claim this skillOwner claim
This Registry indexed listing is attributed to browserbase but is not marked official yet. Claim it to add a verified owner signal and make future launch, install, and audit updates easier to trust.
Creator backlink kit
Show the canonical listing, current trust and audit signals, and real Agent-Proven evidence where developers evaluate the repository.
[](https://www.openagentskill.com/skills/browserbase-ui-test?ref=github&utm_source=github&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=creator_badge)
[](https://www.openagentskill.com/skills/browserbase-ui-test?ref=github&utm_source=github&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=creator_badge)
[](https://www.openagentskill.com/skills/browserbase-ui-test/audit)
[](https://www.openagentskill.com/skills/browserbase-ui-test?ref=github&utm_source=github&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=creator_badge)browserbase
@browserbase
Share whether this skill looks useful for your agent workflow. Aggregated feedback improves rankings over time.
Sandbox only
Wazuh
Wazuh - The Open Source Security Platform. Unified XDR and SIEM protection for endpoints and cloud workloads.
16.3K StarsMaigret
🕵️♂️ Collect a dossier on a person by username from 3000+ sites
32.9K StarsNuclei
Nuclei is a fast, customizable vulnerability scanner powered by the global security community and built on a simple YAML-based DSL, enabling collaboration to tackle trending vulnerabilities on the internet. It helps you find vulnerabilities in your applications, APIs, networks, DNS, and cloud configurations.
29.2K StarsInfisical
Infisical is the open-source platform for secrets, certificates, and privileged access management.
27.4K StarsSandbox only
Install targets
Codex install prompt
Install the "ui-test" agent skill from https://github.com/browserbase/skills/tree/main/skills/ui-test. Read its SKILL.md or equivalent instructions first, install only the files needed for this workspace, and summarize any required setup before using it. Skill purpose: AI-powered adversarial UI testing via the browse CLI. Analyzes git diffs to test only what changed, or explores the full app to find bugs. Tests functional correctness, accessibility, responsive layout, and UX heuristics. Use when the user asks to test UI changes, QA a pull request, audit accessibility, or run exploratory testing. Supports local browser (localhost) and remote Browserbase (deployed sites). After the install attempt, report the result to https://www.openagentskill.com/api/agent/outcome with POST JSON {"event_id":"install_<unique-id>","skill_slug":"browserbase-ui-test","task":"Install ui-test","agent":"codex","outcome":"success","install_used":true}. Replace event_id with a unique value and outcome with success or failed. Report success only after the skill is installed and a minimal verification passes.Supply asset profile
Code review, repo analysis, testing, CI, GitHub, DevOps, and developer workflow skills.
Scenario
Testing and QA
I need my agent to test a web app, reproduce bugs, and verify fixes.
Agent fit
Claude Code + Browser agents + CLI
Codex, Claude Code, Cursor, CLI, or custom agents.
Install
Ready
npx skills add browserbase/skills --skill ui-test
Maintenance
fresh
4d since push
Risk
Needs review
Dependency or permission surface needs review
GitHub quality
3.7K
83/100 Quality · 72/100 Trust
Coverage tags
Review notes
Dependency or permission surface needs review · Permission surface may require sandboxing
Agent adoption scorecard
These scores combine public repository metadata, OpenAgentSkill review signals, maintenance freshness, and install readiness. They are a shortlist signal, not a replacement for human review.
Quality
StrongSolid option that is likely worth shortlisting for production workflows.
Trust
Sandbox onlyUseful candidate with missing or mixed trust signals. Keep it in an isolated workspace until the outcome loop proves task fit.
Audit
Needs reviewA machine-readable review of install readiness, security metadata, maintenance, and adoption risk.
OpenAgentSkill Trust Score v5
Run only in a sandbox and compare close alternatives before using it for real work.
Stars
3.7K GitHub stars
Repo activity
3.7K stars, 237 forks
Maintenance
4d since push
License
MIT
Install
npx skills add browserbase/skills --skill ui-test
Install safety
Agent-readable metadata
Use this block or the embedded JSON to decide whether an agent should install this skill, choose an alternative, or ask for human review first.
Suited tasks
Suited agents
Install decision
Trust and risk
Outcome loop
Install command
npx skills add browserbase/skills --skill ui-testDo not use when
Agent safety v2
Sparse or mixed signals. Useful for discovery, but not for autonomous installation.
Test manually in an isolated workspace and compare against safer alternatives.
high
Skill metadata references terminal, CLI, shell, subprocess, or command execution workflows.
medium
Skill may drive a browser or interact with web pages.
medium
Skill likely fetches remote pages, APIs, repositories, or external services.
medium
Skill may read or write project files, documents, generated artifacts, or local workspace state.
Agent resolve plan
The Resolve API returns the selected skill, alternatives, safety policy, audit notes, install target, and copy-paste prompt an agent can follow without scraping this page.
Open JSON
/api/agent/resolve?task=Use%20ui-test%20for%20an%20agent%20workflow&agent=codex&max_risk=medium
Resolve text
/api/agent/resolve?task=Use%20ui-test%20for%20an%20agent%20workflow&agent=codex&max_risk=medium&format=text
Install handoff
/api/skills/browserbase-ui-test/install
Agent should check
Copy prompt
Task: Use ui-test in this workspace.
Resolve first: https://www.openagentskill.com/api/agent/resolve?task=Use%20ui-test%20for%20an%20agent%20workflow&agent=codex&max_risk=medium
Review install handoff: https://www.openagentskill.com/api/skills/browserbase-ui-test/install
Install command: npx skills add browserbase/skills --skill ui-test
Before running it, summarize audit warnings, required permissions, and the fallback skill if install is risky.Agent handoff
Use the public install endpoint to fetch the command, safety checklist, target prompts, and canonical links for this skill.
Install handoff
/api/skills/browserbase-ui-test/install
LLM text format
/api/skills/browserbase-ui-test/install?format=text
Find alternatives
/api/skills/search?q=ui-test&limit=3
Agent prompt
Use ui-test for this task. Review https://www.openagentskill.com/api/skills/browserbase-ui-test/install, then install with: npx skills add browserbase/skills --skill ui-testRegistry metadata
This page exposes the same decision, trust, audit, use-case, and install signals through the Registry API, so agents can rank this skill without scraping the UI.
Manifest
/api/registry/manifest/browserbase-ui-test
LLM text
/api/registry/manifest/browserbase-ui-test?format=text
Install alias
/api/registry/install/browserbase-ui-test
Recommend
/api/registry/recommend?task=Use%20ui-test%20in%20an%20agent%20workflow&limit=3
Agent fit
Testing and QA
Use-case tags
Platforms
Claude Code, Browser agents
Audit report
A machine-readable review of install readiness, security metadata, maintenance, and adoption risk.
Agent decision cockpit
Use this as a leading candidate, then validate the README and install path in your own agent stack.
Role in stack
Primary pick
Primary fit
Testing and QA
Trust label
Production-ready
Install path
Command ready
Use when
Evidence
review first
Implementation path
Trust profile
Useful candidate with missing or mixed trust signals. Keep it in an isolated workspace until the outcome loop proves task fit.
GitHub adoption
PASS3.7K GitHub stars
Stars/forks activity
INFO3.7K stars, 237 forks; issue activity unavailable in current metadata
Recent maintenance
PASS4d since push
License clarity
PASSMIT
Good signals
Review before install
Recommended action
Run only in a sandbox and compare close alternatives before using it for real work.
Quality profile
Solid option that is likely worth shortlisting for production workflows.
Workflow fit
Verify behavior
I need my agent to test a web app, reproduce bugs, and verify fixes.
Build and ship code
I need a coding agent that can understand a repository, edit code, and review pull requests.
Manage repositories
I need my agent to triage GitHub issues, review pull requests, and summarize repository changes.
Workflow fit
Inspect, patch, and verify code
A workflow for software agents that inspect repositories, review pull requests, generate tests, and turn findings into shippable patches.
Operate and verify web apps
A workflow for agents that navigate products, fill forms, take screenshots, and verify real user flows across web applications.
Design, build, test, and ship interfaces
A practical workflow for agents that turn product briefs or Figma designs into polished frontend code, review the result, test it in a browser, and prepare a safe deployment.
Alternative shortlist
Similar skills that may fit this task.
Wazuh - The Open Source Security Platform. Unified XDR and SIEM protection for endpoints and cloud workloads.
🕵️♂️ Collect a dossier on a person by username from 3000+ sites
Nuclei is a fast, customizable vulnerability scanner powered by the global security community and built on a simple YAML-based DSL, enabling collaboration to tackle trending vulnerabilities on the internet. It helps you find vulnerabilities in your applications, APIs, networks, DNS, and cloud configurations.
Infisical is the open-source platform for secrets, certificates, and privileged access management.
--- name: ui-test description: "AI-powered adversarial UI testing via the browse CLI. Analyzes git diffs to test only what changed, or explores the full app to find bugs. Tests functional correctness, accessibility, responsive layout, and UX heuristics. Use when the user asks to test UI changes, QA a pull request, audit accessibility, or run exploratory testing. Supports local browser (localhost) and remote Browserbase (deployed sites)." license: MIT metadata: author: browserbase version: "0.4.0" allowed-tools: Bash Read Glob Grep Agent compatibility: "Requires the browse CLI (`npm install -g browse`). For remote testing: BROWSERBASE_API_KEY and cookie-sync skill." ---
# 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: 2 ```
**The 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 like `homepage-cta`, `form-validation-error`, `modal-cancel` - `evidence`: what you observed that proves the step passed (element ref, text content, URL, eval result) - `expected → actual`: what you expected vs what you got - `screenshot-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:
```bash # 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>.png ```
Setup the screenshot directory at the start of any test run:
```bash mkdir -p .context/ui-test-screenshots ```
**Rules:** - 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 agents - For 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)
1. **Deterministic check** (strongest) — `browse eval` returns structured data you can inspect. Examples: axe-core violation count, `document.title`, form field value, console error array, element count. 2. **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. 3. **Before/after comparison** — snapshot before action, act, snapshot after. Verify the tree changed in the expected way (element appeared, disappeared, text changed). 4. **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:
```bash # 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.png ```
## Setup
```bash which browse || npm install -g browse ```
### Avoid 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): ```json { "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)
```bash browse open http://localhost:3000 --local ```
`browse 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)
```bash # 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_RELEASE ```
Cookie-sync flags: `--domains`, `--context`, `--verified`, `--proxy "City,ST,US"`
## Workflow A: Diff-Driven Testing
### Phase 1: Analyze the diff
```bash git diff --name-only HEAD~1 # or: git diff --name-only / git diff --name-only main...HEAD git diff HEAD~1 -- <file> # read actual changes ```
Categorize changed files:
| File pattern | UI impact | What to test | |-------------|-----------|-----------
Source provenance
Decision snapshot
3,707 GitHub stars
Audit
Install and adoption review
Agent-proven evidence
Outcome reports after resolve, review, install, and one narrow run.
No agent outcome data yet. The first agent run can report success, setup needs, risk blocks, failure, or not-relevant through /api/agent/outcome.
Install
Free and open source. Review the report before installing into production agents.
Growth loop
Scenario-led draft for ui-test, ready for a manual X post.
A practical pick for a web workflow: ui-test: AI-powered adversarial UI testing via the browse CLI. Analyzes git diffs to test only what changed, or explores the full ap... 3.7K stars https://www.openagentskill.com/skills/browserbase-ui-test?ref=x
Listing + install path for ui-test: https://www.openagentskill.com/skills/browserbase-ui-test?ref=x Install: npx skills add browserbase/skills --skill ui-test
Listing source
This listing was indexed from public sources and is not marked official until a maintainer claim is approved.
Attribution links to the public repository or creator profile. Creators can claim the listing to update ownership signals.
Claim this skillOwner claim
This Registry indexed listing is attributed to browserbase but is not marked official yet. Claim it to add a verified owner signal and make future launch, install, and audit updates easier to trust.
Creator backlink kit
Show the canonical listing, current trust and audit signals, and real Agent-Proven evidence where developers evaluate the repository.
[](https://www.openagentskill.com/skills/browserbase-ui-test?ref=github&utm_source=github&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=creator_badge)
[](https://www.openagentskill.com/skills/browserbase-ui-test?ref=github&utm_source=github&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=creator_badge)
[](https://www.openagentskill.com/skills/browserbase-ui-test/audit)
[](https://www.openagentskill.com/skills/browserbase-ui-test?ref=github&utm_source=github&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=creator_badge)browserbase
@browserbase
Share whether this skill looks useful for your agent workflow. Aggregated feedback improves rankings over time.
Sandbox only
Wazuh
Wazuh - The Open Source Security Platform. Unified XDR and SIEM protection for endpoints and cloud workloads.
16.3K StarsMaigret
🕵️♂️ Collect a dossier on a person by username from 3000+ sites
32.9K StarsNuclei
Nuclei is a fast, customizable vulnerability scanner powered by the global security community and built on a simple YAML-based DSL, enabling collaboration to tackle trending vulnerabilities on the internet. It helps you find vulnerabilities in your applications, APIs, networks, DNS, and cloud configurations.
29.2K StarsInfisical
Infisical is the open-source platform for secrets, certificates, and privileged access management.
27.4K StarsSandbox only
Install targets
Codex install prompt
Install the "ui-test" agent skill from https://github.com/browserbase/skills/tree/main/skills/ui-test. Read its SKILL.md or equivalent instructions first, install only the files needed for this workspace, and summarize any required setup before using it. Skill purpose: AI-powered adversarial UI testing via the browse CLI. Analyzes git diffs to test only what changed, or explores the full app to find bugs. Tests functional correctness, accessibility, responsive layout, and UX heuristics. Use when the user asks to test UI changes, QA a pull request, audit accessibility, or run exploratory testing. Supports local browser (localhost) and remote Browserbase (deployed sites). After the install attempt, report the result to https://www.openagentskill.com/api/agent/outcome with POST JSON {"event_id":"install_<unique-id>","skill_slug":"browserbase-ui-test","task":"Install ui-test","agent":"codex","outcome":"success","install_used":true}. Replace event_id with a unique value and outcome with success or failed. Report success only after the skill is installed and a minimal verification passes.Supply asset profile
Code review, repo analysis, testing, CI, GitHub, DevOps, and developer workflow skills.
Scenario
Testing and QA
I need my agent to test a web app, reproduce bugs, and verify fixes.
Agent fit
Claude Code + Browser agents + CLI
Codex, Claude Code, Cursor, CLI, or custom agents.
Install
Ready
npx skills add browserbase/skills --skill ui-test
Maintenance
fresh
4d since push
Risk
Needs review
Dependency or permission surface needs review
GitHub quality
3.7K
83/100 Quality · 72/100 Trust
Coverage tags
Review notes
Dependency or permission surface needs review · Permission surface may require sandboxing
Agent adoption scorecard
These scores combine public repository metadata, OpenAgentSkill review signals, maintenance freshness, and install readiness. They are a shortlist signal, not a replacement for human review.
Quality
StrongSolid option that is likely worth shortlisting for production workflows.
Trust
Sandbox onlyUseful candidate with missing or mixed trust signals. Keep it in an isolated workspace until the outcome loop proves task fit.
Audit
Needs reviewA machine-readable review of install readiness, security metadata, maintenance, and adoption risk.
OpenAgentSkill Trust Score v5
Run only in a sandbox and compare close alternatives before using it for real work.
Stars
3.7K GitHub stars
Repo activity
3.7K stars, 237 forks
Maintenance
4d since push
License
MIT
Install
npx skills add browserbase/skills --skill ui-test
Install safety
Agent-readable metadata
Use this block or the embedded JSON to decide whether an agent should install this skill, choose an alternative, or ask for human review first.
Suited tasks
Suited agents
Install decision
Trust and risk
Outcome loop
Install command
npx skills add browserbase/skills --skill ui-testDo not use when
Agent safety v2
Sparse or mixed signals. Useful for discovery, but not for autonomous installation.
Test manually in an isolated workspace and compare against safer alternatives.
high
Skill metadata references terminal, CLI, shell, subprocess, or command execution workflows.
medium
Skill may drive a browser or interact with web pages.
medium
Skill likely fetches remote pages, APIs, repositories, or external services.
medium
Skill may read or write project files, documents, generated artifacts, or local workspace state.
Agent resolve plan
The Resolve API returns the selected skill, alternatives, safety policy, audit notes, install target, and copy-paste prompt an agent can follow without scraping this page.
Open JSON
/api/agent/resolve?task=Use%20ui-test%20for%20an%20agent%20workflow&agent=codex&max_risk=medium
Resolve text
/api/agent/resolve?task=Use%20ui-test%20for%20an%20agent%20workflow&agent=codex&max_risk=medium&format=text
Install handoff
/api/skills/browserbase-ui-test/install
Agent should check
Copy prompt
Task: Use ui-test in this workspace.
Resolve first: https://www.openagentskill.com/api/agent/resolve?task=Use%20ui-test%20for%20an%20agent%20workflow&agent=codex&max_risk=medium
Review install handoff: https://www.openagentskill.com/api/skills/browserbase-ui-test/install
Install command: npx skills add browserbase/skills --skill ui-test
Before running it, summarize audit warnings, required permissions, and the fallback skill if install is risky.Agent handoff
Use the public install endpoint to fetch the command, safety checklist, target prompts, and canonical links for this skill.
Install handoff
/api/skills/browserbase-ui-test/install
LLM text format
/api/skills/browserbase-ui-test/install?format=text
Find alternatives
/api/skills/search?q=ui-test&limit=3
Agent prompt
Use ui-test for this task. Review https://www.openagentskill.com/api/skills/browserbase-ui-test/install, then install with: npx skills add browserbase/skills --skill ui-testRegistry metadata
This page exposes the same decision, trust, audit, use-case, and install signals through the Registry API, so agents can rank this skill without scraping the UI.
Manifest
/api/registry/manifest/browserbase-ui-test
LLM text
/api/registry/manifest/browserbase-ui-test?format=text
Install alias
/api/registry/install/browserbase-ui-test
Recommend
/api/registry/recommend?task=Use%20ui-test%20in%20an%20agent%20workflow&limit=3
Agent fit
Testing and QA
Use-case tags
Platforms
Claude Code, Browser agents
Audit report
A machine-readable review of install readiness, security metadata, maintenance, and adoption risk.
Agent decision cockpit
Use this as a leading candidate, then validate the README and install path in your own agent stack.
Role in stack
Primary pick
Primary fit
Testing and QA
Trust label
Production-ready
Install path
Command ready
Use when
Evidence
review first
Implementation path
Trust profile
Useful candidate with missing or mixed trust signals. Keep it in an isolated workspace until the outcome loop proves task fit.
GitHub adoption
PASS3.7K GitHub stars
Stars/forks activity
INFO3.7K stars, 237 forks; issue activity unavailable in current metadata
Recent maintenance
PASS4d since push
License clarity
PASSMIT
Good signals
Review before install
Recommended action
Run only in a sandbox and compare close alternatives before using it for real work.
Quality profile
Solid option that is likely worth shortlisting for production workflows.
Workflow fit
Verify behavior
I need my agent to test a web app, reproduce bugs, and verify fixes.
Build and ship code
I need a coding agent that can understand a repository, edit code, and review pull requests.
Manage repositories
I need my agent to triage GitHub issues, review pull requests, and summarize repository changes.
Workflow fit
Inspect, patch, and verify code
A workflow for software agents that inspect repositories, review pull requests, generate tests, and turn findings into shippable patches.
Operate and verify web apps
A workflow for agents that navigate products, fill forms, take screenshots, and verify real user flows across web applications.
Design, build, test, and ship interfaces
A practical workflow for agents that turn product briefs or Figma designs into polished frontend code, review the result, test it in a browser, and prepare a safe deployment.
Alternative shortlist
Similar skills that may fit this task.
Wazuh - The Open Source Security Platform. Unified XDR and SIEM protection for endpoints and cloud workloads.
🕵️♂️ Collect a dossier on a person by username from 3000+ sites
Nuclei is a fast, customizable vulnerability scanner powered by the global security community and built on a simple YAML-based DSL, enabling collaboration to tackle trending vulnerabilities on the internet. It helps you find vulnerabilities in your applications, APIs, networks, DNS, and cloud configurations.
Infisical is the open-source platform for secrets, certificates, and privileged access management.
--- name: ui-test description: "AI-powered adversarial UI testing via the browse CLI. Analyzes git diffs to test only what changed, or explores the full app to find bugs. Tests functional correctness, accessibility, responsive layout, and UX heuristics. Use when the user asks to test UI changes, QA a pull request, audit accessibility, or run exploratory testing. Supports local browser (localhost) and remote Browserbase (deployed sites)." license: MIT metadata: author: browserbase version: "0.4.0" allowed-tools: Bash Read Glob Grep Agent compatibility: "Requires the browse CLI (`npm install -g browse`). For remote testing: BROWSERBASE_API_KEY and cookie-sync skill." ---
# 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: 2 ```
**The 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 like `homepage-cta`, `form-validation-error`, `modal-cancel` - `evidence`: what you observed that proves the step passed (element ref, text content, URL, eval result) - `expected → actual`: what you expected vs what you got - `screenshot-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:
```bash # 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>.png ```
Setup the screenshot directory at the start of any test run:
```bash mkdir -p .context/ui-test-screenshots ```
**Rules:** - 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 agents - For 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)
1. **Deterministic check** (strongest) — `browse eval` returns structured data you can inspect. Examples: axe-core violation count, `document.title`, form field value, console error array, element count. 2. **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. 3. **Before/after comparison** — snapshot before action, act, snapshot after. Verify the tree changed in the expected way (element appeared, disappeared, text changed). 4. **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:
```bash # 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.png ```
## Setup
```bash which browse || npm install -g browse ```
### Avoid 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): ```json { "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)
```bash browse open http://localhost:3000 --local ```
`browse 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)
```bash # 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_RELEASE ```
Cookie-sync flags: `--domains`, `--context`, `--verified`, `--proxy "City,ST,US"`
## Workflow A: Diff-Driven Testing
### Phase 1: Analyze the diff
```bash git diff --name-only HEAD~1 # or: git diff --name-only / git diff --name-only main...HEAD git diff HEAD~1 -- <file> # read actual changes ```
Categorize changed files:
| File pattern | UI impact | What to test | |-------------|-----------|-----------
Source provenance
Decision snapshot
3,707 GitHub stars
Audit
Install and adoption review
Agent-proven evidence
Outcome reports after resolve, review, install, and one narrow run.
No agent outcome data yet. The first agent run can report success, setup needs, risk blocks, failure, or not-relevant through /api/agent/outcome.
Install
Free and open source. Review the report before installing into production agents.
Growth loop
Scenario-led draft for ui-test, ready for a manual X post.
A practical pick for a web workflow: ui-test: AI-powered adversarial UI testing via the browse CLI. Analyzes git diffs to test only what changed, or explores the full ap... 3.7K stars https://www.openagentskill.com/skills/browserbase-ui-test?ref=x
Listing + install path for ui-test: https://www.openagentskill.com/skills/browserbase-ui-test?ref=x Install: npx skills add browserbase/skills --skill ui-test
Listing source
This listing was indexed from public sources and is not marked official until a maintainer claim is approved.
Attribution links to the public repository or creator profile. Creators can claim the listing to update ownership signals.
Claim this skillOwner claim
This Registry indexed listing is attributed to browserbase but is not marked official yet. Claim it to add a verified owner signal and make future launch, install, and audit updates easier to trust.
Creator backlink kit
Show the canonical listing, current trust and audit signals, and real Agent-Proven evidence where developers evaluate the repository.
[](https://www.openagentskill.com/skills/browserbase-ui-test?ref=github&utm_source=github&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=creator_badge)
[](https://www.openagentskill.com/skills/browserbase-ui-test?ref=github&utm_source=github&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=creator_badge)
[](https://www.openagentskill.com/skills/browserbase-ui-test/audit)
[](https://www.openagentskill.com/skills/browserbase-ui-test?ref=github&utm_source=github&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=creator_badge)browserbase
@browserbase
Share whether this skill looks useful for your agent workflow. Aggregated feedback improves rankings over time.
Sandbox only
Wazuh
Wazuh - The Open Source Security Platform. Unified XDR and SIEM protection for endpoints and cloud workloads.
16.3K StarsMaigret
🕵️♂️ Collect a dossier on a person by username from 3000+ sites
32.9K StarsNuclei
Nuclei is a fast, customizable vulnerability scanner powered by the global security community and built on a simple YAML-based DSL, enabling collaboration to tackle trending vulnerabilities on the internet. It helps you find vulnerabilities in your applications, APIs, networks, DNS, and cloud configurations.
29.2K StarsInfisical
Infisical is the open-source platform for secrets, certificates, and privileged access management.
27.4K StarsPermission surface
shell or command execution, filesystem or document access
Agent outcomes
No agent outcome data yet
Docs
Strong README/SKILL.md context
Risk summary
Install readiness
Permission surface
shell or command execution, filesystem or document access
Agent outcomes
No agent outcome data yet
Docs
Strong README/SKILL.md context
Risk summary
Install readiness
Permission surface
shell or command execution, filesystem or document access
Agent outcomes
No agent outcome data yet
Docs
Strong README/SKILL.md context
Risk summary
Install readiness
Permission surface
shell or command execution, filesystem or document access
Agent outcomes
No agent outcome data yet
Docs
Strong README/SKILL.md context
Risk summary
Install readiness