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.
npx skills add nimadorostkar/Claude-Skills-collection --skill web-app-testinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/nimadorostkar/Claude-Skills-collectionWrote 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/skills/nimadorostkar/claude-skills-collection/web-app-testing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/nimadorostkar/claude-skills-collection/web-app-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nimadorostkar/claude-skills-collection/web-app-testing/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/skills/nimadorostkar/claude-skills-collection/web-app-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/nimadorostkar/claude-skills-collection/web-app-testing.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector pass
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 | $0.00046 | $0.01162 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00581 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00232 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00116 |
Grade A, and why
web-app-testing 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 8d 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 — 105 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Web Application Testing
Purpose
Verify a web application by driving it, systematically. Automated tests confirm what someone thought to check; interactive testing finds what nobody thought of, which is where the interesting bugs are.
When to Use
- Verifying a feature works before shipping.
- Reproducing a reported bug.
- Exploring a flow for defects that automated tests would not catch.
- Checking a fix in a real browser.
Capabilities
- Systematic exploration of a feature's state space.
- Console and network inspection during the flow.
- Boundary and error-path probing.
- Cross-viewport and cross-browser checks.
- Clear, reproducible defect reports.
Inputs
- The feature or flow, and what it is meant to do.
- The environment and any test credentials.
- The bug report, if reproducing.
Outputs
- A verdict: works, or a list of defects.
- For each defect: steps, expected, actual, evidence (screenshot, console error, failing request).
- Notes on what was checked, so gaps are visible.
Workflow
- Walk the happy path first — Confirm the feature does what it claims for a normal user with normal data. If this fails, stop; there is nothing else to test yet.
- Open the console and the network tab before you start — A 500 that the UI silently swallows, or a console error on every keystroke, is invisible if you are only looking at the page.
- Probe the boundaries — Empty input, maximum length, special characters, a name with an apostrophe, a quantity of zero, a quantity of -1. The interesting bugs live here.
- Break the network — Throttle it, then take it offline mid-request. What does the user see? A spinner forever is a defect.
- Test the back button and refresh — Mid-flow. Multi-step forms and payment flows break here constantly.
- Check the second viewport — At least one mobile width. Layouts break at breakpoints, and nobody looks.
Best Practices
- The console is the cheapest bug detector available and the least used. An error there during a flow that "works" is a defect that has not surfaced yet.
- Test what happens when the user does the reasonable-but-unexpected thing: double-clicking submit, opening two tabs, pressing back after paying.
- A defect report without steps to reproduce is a complaint. Include the exact input, the exact URL, and the exact browser.
- Check the network tab for requests that should not be there: an API called four times on one page load, a request firing on every keystroke without debouncing.
- Verify against the requirement, not against your assumption about the requirement. Read what it was supposed to do.
- Note what you did not test. An untested area that is assumed tested is worse than a known gap.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 105 lines · 46 tokens per session scan A 9322f24fdd22
web-app-testing is a skill published in the GitHub repository nimadorostkar/Claude-Skills-collection (26 stars, last pushed 24d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 46 tokens to every session and 1,162 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
webapp-testing
Toolkit for interacting with and testing local web applications using Playwright. Supports verifying frontend functionality, debugging UI behavior, capturing browser screenshots, and viewing browser logs.
browser-testing-with-devtools
Tests in real browsers via Chrome DevTools MCP. Use when building or debugging anything that runs in a browser. Use when you need to inspect the DOM, capture console errors, analyze network requests, profile performance, or verify visual output with real runtime data. Requires the chrome-devtools MCP server to be…
actionbook-web-test
Run browser-based web tests against websites using Actionbook CLI. Activate when the user wants to test a website workflow, run smoke tests, verify a user flow, check if a web application works, run regression tests, or validate browser-based interactions. Supports test definition, execution, assertion, reporting, and…
web-test
A browser-automation tool for testing the 1C:Enterprise web client. It uses Playwright to navigate sections, fill forms, read tables and reports, and perform user actions in a browser.
agent-browser
Automates browser interactions for web testing, form filling, screenshots, and data extraction. Use when the user needs to navigate websites, interact with web pages, fill forms, take screenshots, test web applications, or extract information from web pages.
smoke-test
Launch the app and hands-on verify that it works by interacting with it. Falls back to an existing integration test suite when there is no interactive surface in scope. Use when the user asks to "smoke test", "test it manually", "verify it works", "try it out", "run a smoke test", "check it in the browser", or "does…