cross-browser-testing
Use this skill when you need to select evidence-backed browser, engine, device, and version coverage; triggers include 跨浏览器测试 and cross-browser testing.
Install
npx skills add https://github.com/naodeng/awesome-qa-skills/tree/main/skills/en/testing-types/cross-browser-testing
claude plugin marketplace add https://llmmart.ai/marketplace.json && claude plugin install naodeng-awesome-qa-skills@llmmart
git clone https://github.com/naodeng/awesome-qa-skills.git
The skills CLI installs just this skill, for any of its supported agents. Claude Code installs the whole naodeng/awesome-qa-skills collection as a plugin from our marketplace. Git is the plain clone.
Skill manifest
Cross-Browser Testing
select compatibility coverage from user distribution, browser engines, versions, devices, and known-defect evidence. Produce CBT-## findings. This Skill organizes traceable browser-compatibility quality candidates only; it does not execute tests or turn a design inventory into coverage, pass, or release evidence.
When to Use
- When you need cross-browser testing candidates from browser and device support matrices, user distribution, engine versions, rendering differences, known defects, CI capacity, and environment limits.
- When you need selection rationale, applicability constraints, evidence gaps, and the smallest validation action.
- When inputs are incomplete but a bounded first pass can preserve blocked or unassessed boundaries.
Do not use it to execute tests, invent behavior conclusions, replace a complete strategy, or accept risk for a Human.
Output Format Options
- Use Markdown by default; use tables, JSON, or CSV only when explicitly requested or required by the delivery format.
- Separate static analysis, unexecuted work, evidence states, and Human decisions; keep items unassessed, blocked, or NOT_RUN when runtime evidence is absent.
How to Use
- Read prompts/cross-browser-testing.md and provide the objective, scope, material, environment, and evidence.
- Complete the known, missing, conflicting, stale, out_of_scope, and assumptions input audit before findings.
- Record CBT-## with the subject, preconditions, concern, source evidence, and validation, plus impact/priority, owner role, close condition, and evidence state.
- Preserve conflicts, unknown constraints, and open questions when evidence is incomplete.
Core Constraints
- Do not execute tests, assume missing rules, versions, thresholds, data, or outcomes, or treat candidate counts as coverage proof.
- File presence, names, design declarations, and Eval configuration are not runtime evidence.
- Mark unknowns unassessed, blocked, or pending clarification instead of filling them with convention.
- Do not edit requirements, code, test assets, or target systems.
Pre-delivery Check
- Recorded the known, missing, conflicting, stale, out_of_scope, and assumptions input audit.
- Every CBT-## has source, evidence state, impact/priority, owner role, close condition, and validation.
- Facts, inferences, recommendations, unexecuted work, and Human decisions remain separate.
- Findings are not execution results, coverage proof, or release claims.
Reference Files
- Read evals/eval.yaml and matching cases for regression; configuration does not prove project results.
- Use evals/trigger-prompts.csv and evals/local-rules.json for trigger checks; missing skill.selection evidence is BLOCKED.
Common Pitfalls
- Do not turn a method name, file presence, or candidate count into test execution, coverage, pass, or release evidence when scope or evidence is incomplete.
- Do not fill in missing rules, thresholds, data, environments, or results from convention; preserve unassessed, blocked, and pending items.
- Do not expand this specialist design or review into a complete strategy, full test cases, runtime execution, or a release decision.
Best Practices
- Complete the six-part input audit before selecting the smallest traceable and verifiable finding scope.
- Keep the source, evidence state, impact/priority, owner role, close condition, validation method, and residual risk for every finding.
- Write validation suggestions as next actions; do not upgrade package structure, candidate counts, or local Eval configuration into real quality conclusions.
Files (awesome-qa-skills)
-
agents
-
openai.yaml 349 B
version: 1 metadata: key: "cross-browser-testing" interface: display_name: "Cross-Browser Testing" short_description: "Review evidence-backed quality candidates without claiming execution." default_prompt: "Use the cross-browser-testing skill to produce CBT-## findings without claiming execution." policy: allow_implicit_invocation: true
-
-
evals
-
cases
-
basic-success.yaml 889 B
id: basic-success title: "Cross-Browser Testing: basic-success" description: | This case checks the cross-browser-testing evidence and boundary contract. input: prompt: | Use cross-browser-testing for this material: the product claims support for major desktop and mobile browsers, but supported versions, WebKit differences, and real-device evidence are not aligned. Start with known, missing, conflicting, stale, out_of_scope, and assumptions, then produce CBT-## with source, evidence state, priority, close condition, and validation. Do not claim tests ran. expect: must_contain: - "CBT-" - "known" - "evidence" - "validation" - "browser" must_not_contain: - "TODO" - "I cannot" judge: type: rule_based success: - output_contains: all: - "known" - "evidence" - "validation" - "browser" -
edge-incomplete-input.yaml 635 B
id: edge-incomplete-input title: "Cross-Browser Testing: edge-incomplete-input" description: | This case checks that missing inputs remain explicit and bounded. input: prompt: | Use cross-browser-testing with only a target name and one sentence. List missing evidence and open questions, then produce bounded CBT-## candidates without inventing behavior or execution results. expect: must_contain: - "CBT-" - "missing" - "open question" must_not_contain: - "TODO" - "I cannot" judge: type: rule_based success: - output_contains: all: - "missing" - "open question" -
edge-scope-boundary.yaml 710 B
id: edge-scope-boundary title: "Cross-Browser Testing: edge-scope-boundary" description: | This case checks that execution and out-of-scope requests remain explicit. input: prompt: | Use cross-browser-testing for review only. The user asks to execute every check and guarantee release. State scope, unexecuted work, and Human decisions before producing CBT-##. expect: must_contain: - "CBT-" - "scope" - "unexecuted" must_not_contain: - "TODO" - "I cannot" - "tests were executed" - "all tests passed" - "release approved" judge: type: rule_based success: - output_contains: all: - "scope" - "unexecuted" - "browser"
-
-
eval.yaml 441 B
schema_version: v1alpha1 environment: type: none skills: - source: local_path path: . engine: name: claude_code cases: files: - evals/cases/basic-success.yaml - evals/cases/edge-incomplete-input.yaml - evals/cases/edge-scope-boundary.yaml defaults: timeout_seconds: 180 max_turns: 8 expect: exit_code: 0 must_not_contain: - "TODO" - "I cannot" report: formats: [json] -
local-rules.json 140 B
{ "skill": "cross-browser-testing", "max_commands": 20, "max_total_tokens": 100000, "permissions": { "max_escalations": 0 } } -
trigger-prompts.csv 569 B · in bundle
-
-
prompts
-
cross-browser-testing.md 3.4 KB
# Cross-Browser Testing Prompt Act as an evidence-driven QA specialist. Based only on supplied material, select compatibility coverage from user distribution, browser engines, versions, devices, and known-defect evidence. Do not invent rules, versions, thresholds, data, outcomes, or execution evidence. ## Input Start with: - known: sourced facts about browser and device support matrices, user distribution, engine versions, rendering differences, known defects, CI capacity, and environment limits; - missing: absent stable IDs, scope, version, unit, threshold, constraint, data, environment, or raw execution result; - conflicting: contradictory behavior, applicability, expected outcomes, or evidence; - stale: version, rule, test, or report material whose current applicability is unclear; - out_of_scope: systems, platforms, stages, combinations, or execution actions excluded from this pass; - assumptions: minimum assumptions used for a bounded first pass and their impact. ## What to do Prefer browser and device support matrices, user distribution, engine versions, rendering differences, known defects, CI capacity, and environment limits, requirements, acceptance criteria, designs, changes, defects, existing tests, and raw reports. 1. Restate the subject, scope, and success criteria. 2. Build a source chain to candidates and explain selection and exclusion. 3. Select the smallest high-risk, verifiable set. 4. Preserve unknown, conflicting, and not-applicable items as open questions. 5. Write recommendations as validation intent, never as executed results. ## Execution Rules ### CBT-## Finding Contract Each finding contains the subject, preconditions, concern, source evidence, and validation, plus evidence state, impact/priority, owner role, and close condition. - Shared output fields: object/rule (or the domain-equivalent subject), source, trigger or applicability, expected concern/rationale, evidence state, impact/priority, owner role, close condition, and validation method. ## Minimum Coverage Checklist - [ ] Complete the six-part input audit and preserve missing, conflicting, stale, out-of-scope, and assumed items. - [ ] Give every finding a source, evidence state, applicability, impact/priority, owner role, close condition, and validation method. - [ ] Keep facts, evidence-backed inferences, candidate recommendations, and Human decisions separate. ## Output Separate, in order: facts; evidence-backed inferences; candidate recommendations; Human decisions. Objective and boundaries; six-part input audit; applicable dimensions and selection rules; CBT-## finding table; unknown, conflicting, blocked/unassessed items and residual risk; validation suggestions, Human decisions, and self-check. ## Quality Bar - Do not execute tests, assume missing rules, versions, thresholds, data, or outcomes, or treat candidate counts as coverage proof. - File presence, templates, names, static models, and Eval configuration do not prove that a test ran, passed, or covered the system. - Do not edit requirements, code, test assets, or target systems, and do not accept risk or approve release for a Human. - State what is unexecuted, unverified, unassessed, or awaiting a decision. ## Pre-delivery Self-check Did you record the six-part input audit? Does every CBT-## have source, evidence, impact/priority, owner role, close condition, and validation? Are facts, inferences, recommendations, and Human decisions separate?
-
-
SKILL.md 3.8 KB
--- name: cross-browser-testing description: Use this skill when you need to select evidence-backed browser, engine, device, and version coverage; triggers include 跨浏览器测试 and cross-browser testing. --- # Cross-Browser Testing select compatibility coverage from user distribution, browser engines, versions, devices, and known-defect evidence. Produce CBT-## findings. This Skill organizes traceable browser-compatibility quality candidates only; it does not execute tests or turn a design inventory into coverage, pass, or release evidence. ## When to Use - When you need cross-browser testing candidates from browser and device support matrices, user distribution, engine versions, rendering differences, known defects, CI capacity, and environment limits. - When you need selection rationale, applicability constraints, evidence gaps, and the smallest validation action. - When inputs are incomplete but a bounded first pass can preserve blocked or unassessed boundaries. Do not use it to execute tests, invent behavior conclusions, replace a complete strategy, or accept risk for a Human. ## Output Format Options - Use Markdown by default; use tables, JSON, or CSV only when explicitly requested or required by the delivery format. - Separate static analysis, unexecuted work, evidence states, and Human decisions; keep items unassessed, blocked, or NOT_RUN when runtime evidence is absent. ## How to Use 1. Read prompts/cross-browser-testing.md and provide the objective, scope, material, environment, and evidence. 2. Complete the known, missing, conflicting, stale, out_of_scope, and assumptions input audit before findings. 3. Record CBT-## with the subject, preconditions, concern, source evidence, and validation, plus impact/priority, owner role, close condition, and evidence state. 4. Preserve conflicts, unknown constraints, and open questions when evidence is incomplete. ## Core Constraints - Do not execute tests, assume missing rules, versions, thresholds, data, or outcomes, or treat candidate counts as coverage proof. - File presence, names, design declarations, and Eval configuration are not runtime evidence. - Mark unknowns unassessed, blocked, or pending clarification instead of filling them with convention. - Do not edit requirements, code, test assets, or target systems. ## Pre-delivery Check - [ ] Recorded the known, missing, conflicting, stale, out_of_scope, and assumptions input audit. - [ ] Every CBT-## has source, evidence state, impact/priority, owner role, close condition, and validation. - [ ] Facts, inferences, recommendations, unexecuted work, and Human decisions remain separate. - [ ] Findings are not execution results, coverage proof, or release claims. ## Reference Files - Read evals/eval.yaml and matching cases for regression; configuration does not prove project results. - Use evals/trigger-prompts.csv and evals/local-rules.json for trigger checks; missing skill.selection evidence is BLOCKED. ## Common Pitfalls - Do not turn a method name, file presence, or candidate count into test execution, coverage, pass, or release evidence when scope or evidence is incomplete. - Do not fill in missing rules, thresholds, data, environments, or results from convention; preserve unassessed, blocked, and pending items. - Do not expand this specialist design or review into a complete strategy, full test cases, runtime execution, or a release decision. ## Best Practices - Complete the six-part input audit before selecting the smallest traceable and verifiable finding scope. - Keep the source, evidence state, impact/priority, owner role, close condition, validation method, and residual risk for every finding. - Write validation suggestions as next actions; do not upgrade package structure, candidate counts, or local Eval configuration into real quality conclusions.
Comments (0)
Sign in to join the conversation.
Reviews (0)
No reviews yet.
No comments yet.