Yeah you can definitely do this with prompts since LLMs know the API really well. I just got tired of retyping the same instructions and wanted to try out the new Skills.

I did test by comparing transcripts across sessions to refine the workflow. As I'm running into new things I'm continuing to do that.

Good questions!

1) Beyond basic tests: You're right to be skeptical. This is best for quick exploratory testing during local development ("does my new feature work?"), not replacing your test suite. Think "scriptable manual testing" - faster than writing Playwright manually, but not suitable for comprehensive CI/CD test coverage.

2) Data privacy: Screenshots stay local in /tmp, but console output and page content Claude writes tests against are sent to Anthropic. This is a local dev tool for testing with dummy data, not for production environments with real user data. Same privacy model as any AI coding assistant - if you wouldn't show Claude your production database, don't test against it with this.

Thanks. I keep seeing silver bullet testing solutions pitched left right and center and wondering about these two points. Glad to see a project with realistic boundaries and expectations set. Would definitely give this a shot if I was working on a local project.

Another llm-generated response. This is sad.

thanks!

If you're going to use claude to help you respond to feedback the least you can do is restate this in your own words. Parent commenter deserves the respect of corresponding with a real human being.

You don’t understand what you’re talking about enough so you have to ask llm to generate a response for you?