Loading...
Loading...
Found 28 Skills
Verify whether a live web app matches its design specification using deterministic CSS checks against the DOM, AND verify user flows by executing Gherkin scenarios via Nova Act. Translates design claims into rules and runs them via verify_* MCP tools; executes flows via act() and act_get(). Produces a combined visual + flow report with annotated screenshots and per-flow detail. Use when checking visual style, component rules, accessibility, project conventions, platform patterns, or end-to-end user journeys against a live site.
Runs scoped browser probes for focus, hit targets, overflow, themes, request failures, and performance attribution, with evidence linked to UI rule IDs. Use when asked to "verify this in the browser", "reproduce this finding", or "check the fix". For source audits and severity use ui-design; field metrics require RUM or CrUX.
Evaluate Expo skills in this repo end-to-end - trigger accuracy, generated code quality, and runtime screenshots on iOS simulator and Android emulator via Expo Go (web optional). Use when the user wants to eval an Expo skill, test that a skill produces working code, benchmark a skill with device screenshots, or verify a skill's output renders correctly.
Use the Playwright MCP server (@playwright/mcp) for browser-driven verification, screenshots, console logs, and UI flow validation; use when debugging or validating Angular UI behavior beyond unit tests.
Verify iOS app behavior on device or simulator via screenshots, UI hierarchy, and touch interactions.
Visually QA a web application by launching it in Cursor's built-in browser, taking screenshots, checking console errors, and auditing network requests. Use after making UI changes to verify they look correct.
Browser verification, proof screenshots, traces, console and network checks, and reproducible UI evidence for Workbench QA.
Drive an open PR to merge-ready from its number — merges the latest base, then loops review-autofix (om-auto-review-pr), built-in CI stabilization, and UI verification (om-auto-qa-pr) until approvable, green, and QA-evidenced. A --ci-only mode drives just CI green on a PR or a plain branch. Files follow-up issues for nits, normalizes labels, hands off to om-approve-merge-pr — never merges itself. Use for "get PR 123 merge-ready".
Implement an existing spec and ship a verified, reviewed, ready PR. Resolves the spec by path, name, issue, or spec-PR number (clean stop with candidates when not found). A spec PR stays design-only — implementation ships on its own PR referencing it. Delegates to om-auto-create-pr (om-auto-continue-pr for an existing implementation PR), then runs the review loop and UI verification with screenshots. Use for "implement the spec X", "build spec from issue 123".
End-to-end testing and click-verification of web apps with Playwright — install, write specs, drive authenticated pages, take screenshots, and run in CI. Use when verifying a web change actually works in a real browser, testing user flows, debugging a UI bug live, or confirming an authed/gated page before shipping. Keywords Playwright, e2e, browser test, click test, screenshot, headless.
Use when testing web applications, debugging browser console errors, automating form interactions, or verifying UI implementations. Load for localhost testing, authenticated app testing (Gmail, Notion), or recording demo GIFs. Requires Chrome extension 1.0.36+, Claude Code 2.0.73+, paid plan.
Use this skill whenever you need to verify that a web UI actually works the way it's supposed to — clicking through flows, asserting state, catching console errors, taking screenshots across multiple viewports for visual review. Triggers on phrases like "驗證網頁", "verify the site", "Playwright tests", "visual regression", "RWD verification", "screenshot comparison", "responsive check", "console error check", "看看手機版有沒有壞", "視覺驗證", "Playwright 測試", "截圖比對", "RWD 驗證", "驗 sidebar", "看 console 有沒有錯", or any post-change moment where the user wants to know "did I break anything?". This is the runtime-behaviour verifier — use `web-content-audit` instead if the question is about file/data consistency rather than rendered behaviour.