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 petrkindlmann/qa-skills --skill cross-browser-testinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/petrkindlmann/qa-skillsWrote 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/petrkindlmann/qa-skills/cross-browser-testing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/petrkindlmann/qa-skills/cross-browser-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/petrkindlmann/qa-skills/cross-browser-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/petrkindlmann/qa-skills/cross-browser-testing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/petrkindlmann/qa-skills/cross-browser-testing.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- Socket pass
- Snyk 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 | $0.00131 | $0.03972 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00052 | $0.01589 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.00794 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00397 |
Grade A, and why
cross-browser-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 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 — 234 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Quick Route
| Situation | Go to |
|---|---|
| Need to decide which browsers to test | Browser Matrix Design |
| Already on Playwright, just add browsers | Playwright Browser Configuration → references/playwright-and-cloud-config.md |
| Need real Safari/Windows/older OS, not engines | Cloud Platform Setup |
| One browser misbehaves; want a test for it | Common Cross-Browser Issues + browserName branch in references/testing-patterns.md |
| Need to record a divergence so it is not re-debugged | Known-Issues Log |
| Pixel diffs / baseline thresholds | use visual-testing |
Discovery Questions
Check .agents/qa-project-context.md first — if it exists, use it and skip anything already answered there. Then:
- Target browsers from analytics: What do actual users use? Pull browser/OS data from your analytics tool. Testing browsers nobody uses is waste; missing a browser 15% of users rely on is a bug.
- Desktop and mobile? Mobile Safari on iOS and Chrome on Android render differently than their desktop counterparts. Treat them as separate matrix entries.
- Cloud platform: BrowserStack, Sauce Labs, LambdaTest, or local engines only? Cloud platforms provide real branded browsers and OSes; Playwright's bundled engines cover Chromium, Firefox, and WebKit (not Chrome/Safari themselves).
- Progressive enhancement or pixel-perfect? Progressive enhancement accepts graceful degradation. Pixel-perfect demands identical rendering. The answer determines pass/fail criteria.
- Existing Playwright config? If the project already uses Playwright, cross-browser testing is a configuration change, not a new tool.
What ships with it
3 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 · 234 lines · 131 tokens per session scan A fc26ccd87643
cross-browser-testing is a skill published in the GitHub repository petrkindlmann/qa-skills (210 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 131 tokens to every session and 3,972 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
Console Error Hunter
Systematically detect, capture, and categorize browser console errors, warnings, and unhandled exceptions during automated test execution.
Geb Testing
Browser automation testing with Geb framework for Groovy/JVM using jQuery-like content DSL, Page Object pattern, Spock integration, and WebDriver abstraction.
playwright-e2e
Comprehensive end-to-end testing skill using Playwright for web applications, covering page objects, selectors, assertions, waits, fixtures, and test organization.
e2e-testing-claude-code
Make Claude Code write and maintain end-to-end tests like a senior SDET — Playwright and Cypress flows with stable locators, the Page Object Model, fixtures, reused auth state, network mocking, and flake-free CI. Claude Code E2E testing, done right.
Browser Agent QA Testing
Teach agents to use AI browser agents for exploratory and smoke QA with step budgets, evidence-based assertions, guardrails, and Playwright conversion.
Checkly Monitoring as Code
Teach agents to build synthetic monitoring as code with Checkly, including Playwright browser checks, API checks, alerting, and CI deploy workflows.