Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索操作浏览器github未标认证来源可访问clear审计通过

frontend-testing前端测试

Agent Skill

用于辅助前端页面、组件、样式和交互逻辑的开发与维护。它适合让 Agent 生成或审查 React、Next.js、Vue、Tailwind、CSS 等相关代码,整理组件结构,或定位布局和性能问题。使用时需要结合项目现有设计系统、路由和构建方式,避免只生成孤立片段;涉及页面改动时,应配合本地预览和构建检查确认视觉效果。

总安装

376

周安装

16

GitHub Stars

3

下载量

132
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

3

许可证

MIT

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:frontend-testing(前端测试)
来源仓库:https://github.com/schalkneethling/webdev-agent-skills
仓库路径:skills/frontend-testing
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/schalkneethling/webdev-agent-skills --skill frontend-testing
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。不同来源提供的安装方式可能略有差异;本站展示可直接复制的安装命令,安装前请核对来源页面。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/schalkneethling/webdev-agent-skills --skill frontend-testing

简介

用于辅助前端组件的测试用例编写和执行。frontend-testing 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

  • 适合在 React、Vue 等项目中验证 UI 行为和兼容性。
  • 可生成 Jest、Cypress 等框架的测试片段。
  • 安装依赖 GitHub 仓库,需确认项目结构支持测试集成。
  • 测试结果应结合手动验证,避免自动化误判。

SKILL.md

Frontend Testing

Start by writing tests that validate acceptance criteria. Then add implementation tests where they provide value.

Core Principle

"The more your tests resemble the way your software is used, the more confidence they can give you." — Kent C. Dodds

This principle guides testing decisions, but isn't the whole picture:

  • Acceptance criteria tests verify the system does what users/stakeholders need. These should be stable across refactors.
  • Implementation tests verify the pieces are robust — edge cases, error handling, complex logic. These may change when you refactor.

Both have value. The anti-pattern to avoid is tests that *only* mirror implementation without validating meaningful behavior.

When to Load References

Load reference files based on test type:

  • Unit tests with DOM: references/locator-strategies.md
  • E2E tests: references/locator-strategies.md, references/aria-snapshots.md
  • Visual regression tests: references/visual-regression.md
  • Accessibility audits: references/accessibility-testing.md
  • Structure validation: references/aria-snapshots.md — consolidate multiple assertions into one
  • All tests: Start with this file for core workflow

Workflow

Step 1: Start with Acceptance Criteria

Before writing any test, identify what the code should do from the user's perspective.

Ask for or extract criteria from:

  • Ticket description or user story
  • Figma annotations
  • Functional requirements
  • Product owner clarification

Document criteria as a checklist. These become your first tests.

Write acceptance tests before reading implementation. This prevents circular validation where tests just confirm "code does what code does."

Step 2: Map Criteria to Test Cases

For each criterion, identify:

  • Happy path: Normal expected behavior
  • Edge cases: Boundary conditions
  • Error cases: Invalid inputs, failures

Example mapping:

Criterion: "User can filter products by category"
├─ Happy path: Select category, products filter correctly
├─ Edge case: No products match filter, show empty state
├─ Edge case: Clear filter, all products show again
├─ Error case: Filter API fails, show error message
└─ Accessibility: Filter controls are keyboard accessible

Step 3: Add Implementation Tests (Unit Tests)

After acceptance tests pass, add unit tests for implementation robustness:

  • Edge cases the criteria don't cover (null, undefined, empty arrays, boundary values)
  • Algorithm correctness for complex calculations
  • Error handling paths (exceptions, network failures, parse errors)
  • Complex branching logic hard to exercise through integration tests
  • Performance-sensitive code that needs specific validation
Function: filterProducts(products, category)
├─ Acceptance: Returns matching products (from criteria)
├─ Implementation: Returns empty array when products is null
├─ Implementation: Returns all products when category is empty string
├─ Implementation: Handles case-insensitive category matching
└─ Implementation: Does not mutate original array

The distinction: acceptance tests should rarely change on refactor; implementation tests may need updates when internals change.

Step 4: Choose Test Type

ScenarioTest TypeTool
Pure logic (no DOM)Unit testVitest
Component behaviorUnit test with DOMVitest + Testing Library
User flows, real browserE2E testPlaywright
Semantic structure validationARIA snapshotPlaywright toMatchAriaSnapshot
Visual appearanceVRTPlaywright screenshots
Accessibility complianceA11y testPlaywright + axe-core

ARIA snapshots are particularly valuable for E2E tests. A single snapshot can replace multiple individual assertions while validating the accessibility tree structure.

DOM Environment for Unit Tests: Prefer happy-dom over jsdom. It's faster, and its API limitations serve as a useful signal — if happy-dom doesn't support what you're testing, consider whether it belongs in an E2E test instead.

Step 5: Write Tests Before/Alongside Code

  • Ideal: Write test first, then implementation (TDD)
  • Acceptable: Write test immediately after implementing each criterion
  • Avoid: Write all tests after implementation is "done"

Test Structure

Unit Tests (Vitest)

describe("calculateDiscount", () => {
  describe("when customer has premium membership", () => {
    it("applies 20% discount to order total", () => {
      // Arrange - Set up test data matching criterion
      const order = { total: 100, membership: "premium" };

      // Act - Call the function
      const result = calculateDiscount(order);

      // Assert - Verify expected outcome from requirements
      expect(result).toBe(80);
    });
  });
});

Component Tests (Vitest + Testing Library)

import { render, screen } from "@testing-library/react";
import userEvent from "@testing-library/user-event";

describe("LoginForm", () => {
  describe("when credentials are invalid", () => {
    it("displays error message to user", async () => {
      const user = userEvent.setup();
      render(<LoginForm />);

      // Interact using accessible queries
      await user.type(
        screen.getByLabelText(/email/i),
        "invalid@test.com"
      );
      await user.type(
        screen.getByLabelText(/password/i),
        "wrong"
      );
      await user.click(
        screen.getByRole("button", { name: /sign in/i })
      );

      // Assert on user-visible outcome
      expect(
        await screen.findByRole("alert")
      ).toHaveTextContent(/invalid credentials/i);
    });
  });
});

E2E Tests (Playwright)

import { test, expect } from "@playwright/test";

test.describe("Product Catalog", () => {
  test.describe("filtering by category", () => {
    test("shows only matching products", async ({ page }) => {
      await page.goto("/products");

      // Use semantic locators
      await page.getByRole("combobox", { name: /category/i }).selectOption("Electronics");

      // Assert count, then spot-check first/last
      const products = page.getByRole("article");
      await expect(products).toHaveCount(5);
      await expect(products.first()).toContainText(/electronics/i);
      await expect(products.last()).toContainText(/electronics/i);
    });
  });
});

When you need to verify all items, use Promise.all for parallel assertions:

test("all products match filter", async ({ page }) => {
  await page.goto("/products");
  await page.getByRole("combobox", { name: /category/i }).selectOption("Electronics");

  const products = await page.getByRole("article").all();

  // Parallel assertions — faster than sequential await in a loop
  await Promise.all(
    products.map(product =>
      expect(product.getByText(/electronics/i)).toBeVisible()
    )
  );
});

E2E Tests with ARIA Snapshots

ARIA snapshots consolidate multiple assertions into one, validating semantic structure:

test.describe("Login Page", () => {
  test("has correct form structure", async ({ page }) => {
    await page.goto("/login");

    // One snapshot replaces 5+ individual assertions
    await expect(page.getByRole("main")).toMatchAriaSnapshot(`
      - heading "Sign In" [level=1]
      - textbox "Email"
      - textbox "Password"
      - button "Sign In"
      - link "Forgot password?"
    `);
  });

  test("shows validation errors on empty submit", async ({ page }) => {
    await page.goto("/login");
    await page.getByRole("button", { name: /sign in/i }).click();

    await expect(page.getByRole("form")).toMatchAriaSnapshot(`
      - textbox "Email"
      - text "Email is required"
      - textbox "Password"
      - text "Password is required"
      - button "Sign In"
    `);
  });
});

Locator Priority

Use locators that reflect how users and assistive technologies find elements:

  1. getByRole — First choice. Queries accessibility tree.
  2. getByLabelText — Best for form fields. Users find inputs by labels.
  3. getByPlaceholderText — When no label exists (not ideal).
  4. getByText — For non-interactive elements.
  5. getByAltText — For images.
  6. getByTestId — Last resort escape hatch.

If you can't find an element with semantic queries, the UI may have accessibility issues.

Anti-Patterns

Testing Only Implementation Details

Tests that only verify internals without validating meaningful behavior:

// BAD: Tests internal method exists, provides no behavior guarantee
it("has a validateFields method", () => {
  expect(form.#validateFields).toBeDefined();
});

// BAD: Asserts implementation without verifying outcome
it("calls the validator", () => {
  expect(mockValidator).toHaveBeenCalledWith(data);
});

// GOOD: Tests observable behavior (acceptance)
it("prevents submission with invalid email", async () => {
  await user.type(emailInput, "not-an-email");
  await user.click(submitButton);
  expect(screen.getByRole("alert")).toHaveTextContent(/valid email/i);
});

// ALSO GOOD: Tests implementation robustness (unit)
it("returns validation errors for malformed email", () => {
  const result = validateEmail("not-an-email");
  expect(result.valid).toBe(false);
  expect(result.error).toBe("Invalid email format");
});

The key distinction: implementation tests should verify *meaningful* behavior of units, not just that code paths execute.

Circular Validation

// BAD: Test data derived from implementation
const expected = formatPrice(100); // Don't compute expected from code!
expect(formatPrice(100)).toBe(expected);

// GOOD: Expected value from requirements
expect(formatPrice(100)).toBe("$100.00");

Over-Mocking

// BAD: Mock everything, test nothing real
jest.mock("./api");
jest.mock("./utils");
jest.mock("./formatter");
// Now just testing mocks talk to each other

// GOOD: Mock only external boundaries
// Mock: APIs, databases, time, file system
// Real: Business logic, components, formatters

Brittle Selectors

// BAD: Implementation-dependent selectors
page.locator(".btn-primary.submit-form");
page.locator("#root > div > form > button:nth-child(3)");

// GOOD: Semantic locators
page.getByRole("button", { name: /submit order/i });

Failing Tests Mean Bugs (Usually)

When a test fails, the investigation depends on the test type:

Acceptance test fails:

  1. Check the code under test first — likely a real bug
  2. Verify the test still matches current requirements — requirements may have changed
  3. Only update the test after confirming the new behavior is correct

Implementation test fails:

  1. If you're refactoring, the test may legitimately need updating
  2. If you're not refactoring, check the code — likely a bug
  3. Consider whether the test is too tightly coupled to implementation

Don't reflexively update tests to pass. Investigate why they fail.

Checklist Before Submitting Tests

  • Each acceptance criterion has at least one test
  • Edge cases from criteria are covered
  • Implementation tests added for complex logic, error handling, boundary conditions
  • Tests are named descriptively (criteria-based or behavior-based)
  • Using semantic locators (getByRole, getByLabelText)
  • No tests that only verify "code runs" without validating meaningful behavior
  • Failing tests investigated appropriately (acceptance vs implementation)
  • Accessibility checks included for interactive components
  • Consider ARIA snapshots for structure validation (consolidates multiple assertions)

References

Load these files for detailed guidance:

  • references/locator-strategies.md — Complete locator hierarchy with examples
  • references/aria-snapshots.md — Structure validation, consolidating assertions
  • references/accessibility-testing.md — axe-core integration, WCAG targeting
  • references/visual-regression.md — Screenshot testing, baseline management

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

04

需要参考平台分布和安装热度时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

补充不同宿主或平台的使用分布数据

能力 5

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Antigravity

29.87%
按下载量换算39

Claude Code

22.79%
按下载量换算30

OpenCode

16.4%
按下载量换算22

windsurf

13.48%
按下载量换算18

github-copilot

6.83%
按下载量换算9

Codex

3.08%
按下载量换算4

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

操作浏览器

该 Skill 可能涉及浏览器控制能力,使用时可能读取或操作网页内容,需要在受控环境中确认权限边界。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills