GAAI-framework browser-journey-test
Validate user stories by simulating real user journeys in a live browser against deployed application. Activate after implementation to verify actual user experience against acceptance criteria, not just code logic.
git clone https://github.com/Fr-e-d/GAAI-framework
T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/Fr-e-d/GAAI-framework "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/.gaai/core/skills/delivery/browser-journey-test" ~/.claude/skills/fr-e-d-gaai-framework-browser-journey-test && rm -rf "$T"
.gaai/core/skills/delivery/browser-journey-test/SKILL.mdBrowser Journey Test
Purpose / When to Activate
Activate after implementation to validate real user experience — not just code logic.
Use when:
- Stories describe user-facing flows
- Acceptance criteria can only be verified through UI interaction
- Regression testing requires end-to-end validation
Complements (does not replace)
qa-review.
Process
CRITICAL — Anti-Collision Guard (MUST execute before writing any output file): Before writing
contexts/artefacts/test-evidence/{story_id}/journey-test-report.md, check if the target file already exists on disk:
- If it does NOT exist → proceed normally.
- If it DOES exist → read the existing file first. Then decide:
- If the existing content is from a different entity (different story ID, different epic) → STOP immediately, surface the ID collision to the human, do not proceed.
- If the existing content is from the same entity and an update is warranted (e.g., re-run after a fix) → proceed, but preserve any prior evidence or notes that remain relevant. Treat this as an update, not a replacement.
- If the existing content is identical or still valid → skip writing, report "no changes needed". This guard prevents the silent data loss incident of 2026-03-17 where concurrent sessions overwrote story files.
For each Story:
-
Read the Story's acceptance criteria. For each AC, extract the user action (verb + object) and the expected outcome. Produce a numbered action sequence.
-
Execute each action in the sequence using the browser automation capability available in the current environment (e.g., Playwright, Puppeteer, or the agent's built-in browser tool). Navigate to
before starting.deployed_application_url -
After each action, capture: (a) a screenshot saved to
, (b) the HTTP status code, (c) any console errors, (d) whether the expected outcome from Step 1 is visually and functionally confirmed.contexts/artefacts/test-evidence/{story_id}/step-{N}.png -
For each step, classify the result: PASS (outcome confirmed), FUNCTIONAL_FAILURE (expected outcome not met — blocks delivery), UX_FRICTION (outcome met but interaction is degraded — e.g., slow load, confusing layout, accessibility issue — does not block delivery).
-
Produce the test report using the output format below.
Output Format
# Browser Journey Test — {Story ID} > **Date:** {YYYY-MM-DD} > **URL:** {deployed_application_url} > **Overall verdict:** PASS | FAIL ## Step Results | # | Action | Expected Outcome | Result | Evidence | |---|--------|-----------------|--------|----------| | 1 | {action} | {outcome} | PASS/FUNCTIONAL_FAILURE/UX_FRICTION | step-1.png | ## Functional Failures (blocking) {list or "None"} ## UX Friction Points (non-blocking) {list or "None"}
Outputs
contexts/artefacts/test-evidence/{story_id}/journey-test-report.md
— one screenshot per action stepcontexts/artefacts/test-evidence/{story_id}/step-{N}.png
Quality Checks
- Every acceptance criterion has a corresponding browser test
- Every step result has a screenshot as evidence
- Failures include reproduction steps
- Evidence is captured for audit trail
- FUNCTIONAL_FAILURE vs UX_FRICTION classification follows the rule: outcome not met = failure, outcome met but degraded = friction
Non-Goals
This skill must NOT:
- Replace unit or integration tests
- Make product decisions about UX issues
- Run tests against non-deployed code
Validates real user experience. Prevents regressions in production-like conditions.