SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

AC playwright-pro

Production-grade Playwright testing toolkit. Use when the user mentions Playwright tests, end-to-end testing, browser automation, fixing flaky tests, test migration, CI/CD testing, or test suites. Generate tests, fix flaky failures, migrate from Cypress/Selenium, sync with TestRail, run on BrowserStack. 55 templates, 3 agents, smart reporting.

LeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills Agent Skills author: LeoYeAI MIT 80 files · 2 scripts body ≈ 1 174 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 2 d ago

Production-grade Playwright testing toolkit.

As a process C 54/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, running it twice

ProcedurePlaywrightData and analyticsAI and agentsInfrastructuretype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: OpenClaw Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor GitHub Copilot / VS Code Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
A
95/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
88
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
54/100
Has gaps
Result and completion w 14
0
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten
This is a copy of a skill from another catalog; the rating counts the canonical one: playwright-pro (LeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills)

How to improve

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

    Guard findings · 0

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Files scanned: 80. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    ✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec

    Process rating: all ten parameters 54/100

    • 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
    • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
    • 30Running it twice. 2 mutating operations with no state check
    • 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
    • 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash) that frontmatter does not declare
    • 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
    • 100Steps. 26 steps
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1174 tokens

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

    Quality signals

    • +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
    • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
    • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 345: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 11 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 26 items
    • +4Has examples (5 code blocks)
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (6 of 6)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 88.