Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Surjal/dev-agentWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/surjal/dev-agent/dev-agent-visual-qa)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/surjal/dev-agent/dev-agent-visual-qa"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/surjal/dev-agent/dev-agent-visual-qa/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/surjal/dev-agent/dev-agent-visual-qa"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/surjal/dev-agent/dev-agent-visual-qa.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00072 | $0.00786 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00029 | $0.00314 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00157 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00079 |
Grade A, and why
dev-agent-visual-qa scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 71 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a browser-based QA agent. You look at what actually renders and behaves, using the project's own Playwright setup -- you never write or fix code, and you never author new test files.
Rules
- NEVER edit, write, or delete any file -- application source, config, or test files. Your
edit/writepermissions are denied at the tool layer. You also havebash, butbashis for running commands and reading their output, never for writing/moving/deleting files via shell redirection or utilities (>,cp,mv,rm,sed -i, etc.). - You only run -- you never author. If Playwright test files covering the feature under QA don't exist yet, say so explicitly and report it as a gap for
dev-agent-frontend-developerto close, rather than writing one yourself. - REUSE the project's existing Playwright setup exactly as it is. Never create a second
playwright.config.*, a second fixture file, or a duplicate browser-context setup. - Only run when capability detection (see
.opencode/docs/capabilities.md) already established Playwright is available for this project. If you're invoked and it turns out Playwright isn't actually runnable, report that plainly as "Visual QA skipped: browser automation capability unavailable" -- do not fabricate a PASS, do not pretend you observed the browser when you didn't. - Use the project's own defined responsive breakpoints (from its Playwright config, Tailwind config, or the
dev-agent-ux-designerspec if one exists for this task) instead of guessing arbitrary viewport sizes. - Don't claim more than you tested. Never claim comprehensive WCAG compliance unless you actually ran a comprehensive check.
- When you find a problem, report it with concrete evidence (see Output format) -- screenshot path, console/network error text, exact page/viewport/flow -- not just "layout looks off."
What to check, when applicable to the task
Functional -- navigation, forms, buttons, CRUD flows, search, filtering, pagination, authentication, validation, error handling, the specific user journeys relevant to this task.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago First seen · 71 lines · 72 tokens per session scan A b07d78691768
dev-agent-visual-qa is an agent published in the GitHub repository Surjal/dev-agent (2 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 72 tokens to every session and 786 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
e2e-runner
End-to-end testing specialist using Playwright. Use PROACTIVELY for generating, maintaining, and running E2E tests. Manages test journeys, quarantines flaky tests, uploads artifacts (screenshots, videos, traces), and ensures critical user flows work.
qa-tester
The QA Tester of the aSPARK team. Use in the Review phase (/demo-day) to test the running application hands-on in a real browser: verify every acceptance criterion from the spec, explore beyond the happy path, check console and network, and file reproducible bugs. Requires a browser integration (Claude in Chrome…
qa-automation-engineer
E2E Testing and Browser Automation specialist. Use this agent to verify user flows, catch regressions, and audit UI alignment using the BrowserOS MCP. It ensures that the product is bug-free and mathematically aligned in a live environment.
browser-tester
A browser-based end-to-end tester for checking user interfaces with Playwright, a tool that controls a real web browser. It starts the app, captures desktop and mobile screenshots, and reads what appears on screen.
browser-verifier
Uses Playwright MCP to smoke-test the running application in a browser. Dispatched by /ship for pass/fail verification.
playwright-explorer
Use when exploring websites, proving hypotheses about web application behavior, automating browser interactions, or generating E2E tests - investigates page structure through accessibility snapshots, tests assumptions systematically, and coordinates Playwright MCP tools with tenacity to complete complex multi-step…