review

name	review
description	Systematically reviews Playwright test files for anti-patterns, missed best practices, and coverage gaps, producing actionable improvement recommendations. Use when: 'review tests', 'check test quality', 'audit tests', 'improve tests', 'test code review', 'Playwright best practices check'.

Review Playwright Tests

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

Input

$ARGUMENTS can be:

• A file path: review that specific test file
• A directory: review all test files in the directory
• Empty: review all tests in the project's testDir

Steps

1. Gather Context

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

2. Check Each File Against Anti-Patterns

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

Critical (must fix):

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)