---
title: "Review Playwright Tests — Agent Skill & Codex Plugin"
description: "Review Playwright tests for quality. Use when user says 'review tests', 'check test quality', 'audit tests', 'improve tests', 'test code review', or. Agent skill for Claude Code, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI, OpenClaw."
---

# Review Playwright Tests

<div class="page-meta" markdown>
<span class="meta-badge">:material-code-braces: Engineering - Core</span>
<span class="meta-badge">:material-identifier: `pw-review`</span>
<span class="meta-badge">:material-github: <a href="https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills/tree/main/engineering-team/playwright-pro/skills/pw-review/SKILL.md">Source</a></span>
</div>

<div class="install-banner" markdown>
<span class="install-label">Install:</span> <code>claude /plugin install engineering-skills</code>
</div>


Systematically review Playwright test files for anti-patterns, missed best practices, and coverage gaps.

## Input

`$ARGUMENTS` can be:
- A file path: review that specific test file
- A directory: review all test files in the directory
- Empty: review all tests in the project's `testDir`

## Steps

### 1. Gather Context

- Read `playwright.config.ts` for project settings
- List all `*.spec.ts` / `*.spec.js` files in scope
- If reviewing a single file, also check related page objects and fixtures

### 2. Check Each File Against Anti-Patterns

Load `anti-patterns.md` from this skill directory. Check for all 20 anti-patterns.

**Critical (must fix):**
1. `waitForTimeout()` usage
2. Non-web-first assertions (`expect(await ...)`)
3. Hardcoded URLs instead of `baseURL`
4. CSS/XPath selectors when role-based exists
5. Missing `await` on Playwright calls
6. Shared mutable state between tests
7. Test execution order dependencies

**Warning (should fix):**
8. Tests longer than 50 lines (consider splitting)
9. Magic strings without named constants
10. Missing error/edge case tests
11. `page.evaluate()` for things locators can do
12. Nested `test.describe()` more than 2 levels deep
13. Generic test names ("should work", "test 1")

**Info (consider):**
14. No page objects for pages with 5+ locators
15. Inline test data instead of factory/fixture
16. Missing accessibility assertions
17. No visual regression tests for UI-heavy pages
18. Console error assertions not checked
19. Network idle waits instead of specific assertions
20. Missing `test.describe()` grouping

### 3. Score Each File

Rate 1-10 based on:
- **9-10**: Production-ready, follows all golden rules
- **7-8**: Good, minor improvements possible
- **5-6**: Functional but has anti-patterns
- **3-4**: Significant issues, likely flaky
- **1-2**: Needs rewrite

### 4. Generate Review Report

For each file:
```
## <filename> — Score: X/10

### Critical
- Line 15: `waitForTimeout(2000)` → use `expect(locator).toBeVisible()`
- Line 28: CSS selector `.btn-submit` → `getByRole('button', { name: "submit" })`

### Warning
- Line 42: Test name "test login" → "should redirect to dashboard after login"

### Suggestions
- Consider adding error case: what happens with invalid credentials?
```

### 5. For Project-Wide Review

If reviewing an entire test suite:
- Spawn sub-agents per file for parallel review (up to 5 concurrent)
- Or use `/batch` for very large suites
- Aggregate results into a summary table

### 6. Offer Fixes

For each critical issue, provide the corrected code. Ask user: "Apply these fixes? [Yes/No]"

If yes, apply all fixes using `Edit` tool.

## Output

- File-by-file review with scores
- Summary: total files, average score, critical issue count
- Actionable fix list
- Coverage gaps identified (pages/features with no tests)
