pw-review — скилл для Claude Code: что делает и как установить

---
name: "pw-review"
description: >-
  Review Playwright tests for quality. Use when user says "review tests",
  "check test quality", "audit tests", "improve tests", "test code review",
  or "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)