How to Run Test Review with TEA

Use TEA’s test-review workflow to audit test quality with objective scoring and actionable feedback. TEA reviews tests against its knowledge base of best practices.

When to Use This

Want to validate test quality objectively
Need quality metrics for release gates
Preparing for production deployment
Reviewing team-written tests
Auditing AI-generated tests
Onboarding new team members (show good patterns)

Prerequisites

BMad Method installed
TEA agent available
Tests written (to review)
Test framework configured

Steps

1. Load TEA Agent

Start a fresh chat and load TEA:

tea

2. Run the Test Review Workflow

test-review

3. Specify Review Scope

TEA will ask what to review.

Option A: Single File

Review one test file:

tests/e2e/checkout.spec.ts

Best for:

Reviewing specific failing tests
Quick feedback on new tests
Learning from specific examples

Option B: Directory

Review all tests in a directory:

tests/e2e/

Best for:

Reviewing E2E test suite
Comparing test quality across files
Finding patterns of issues

Option C: Entire Suite

Review all tests:

tests/

Best for:

Release gate quality check
Comprehensive audit
Establishing baseline metrics

4. Review the Quality Report

TEA generates a comprehensive quality report with scoring.

Report Structure (`test-review.md`):

# Test Quality Review Report

**Date:** 2026-01-13
**Scope:** tests/e2e/
**Overall Score:** 76/100

## Summary

- **Tests Reviewed:** 12
- **Passing Quality:** 9 tests (75%)
- **Needs Improvement:** 3 tests (25%)
- **Critical Issues:** 2
- **Recommendations:** 6

## Critical Issues

### 1. Hard Waits Detected

**File:** `tests/e2e/checkout.spec.ts:45`
**Issue:** Using `page.waitForTimeout(3000)`
**Impact:** Test is flaky and unnecessarily slow
**Severity:** Critical

**Current Code:**
```typescript
await page.click('button[type="submit"]');
await page.waitForTimeout(3000);  // ❌ Hard wait
await expect(page.locator('.success')).toBeVisible();

Fix:

await page.click('button[type="submit"]');
// Wait for the API response that triggers success message
await page.waitForResponse(resp =>
  resp.url().includes('/api/checkout') && resp.ok()
);
await expect(page.locator('.success')).toBeVisible();

Why This Matters:

Hard waits are fixed timeouts that don’t wait for actual conditions
Tests fail intermittently on slower machines
Wastes time waiting even when response is fast
Network-first patterns are more reliable

2. Conditional Flow Control

File: tests/e2e/profile.spec.ts:28 Issue: Using if/else to handle optional elements Impact: Non-deterministic test behavior Severity: Critical

Current Code:

if (await page.locator('.banner').isVisible()) {
  await page.click('.dismiss');
}
// ❌ Test behavior changes based on banner presence

Fix:

// Option 1: Make banner presence deterministic
await expect(page.locator('.banner')).toBeVisible();
await page.click('.dismiss');

// Option 2: Test both scenarios separately
test('should show banner for new users', async ({ page }) => {
  // Test with banner
});

test('should not show banner for returning users', async ({ page }) => {
  // Test without banner
});

Why This Matters:

Tests should be deterministic (same result every run)
Conditionals hide bugs (what if banner should always show?)
Makes debugging harder
Violates test isolation principle

Recommendations

1. Extract Repeated Setup

File: tests/e2e/profile.spec.ts Issue: Login code duplicated in every test Severity: Medium Impact: Maintenance burden, test verbosity

Current:

test('test 1', async ({ page }) => {
  await page.goto('/login');
  await page.fill('[name="email"]', 'test@example.com');
  await page.fill('[name="password"]', 'password');
  await page.click('button[type="submit"]');
  // Test logic...
});

test('test 2', async ({ page }) => {
  // Same login code repeated
});

Fix (Vanilla Playwright):

// Create fixture in tests/support/fixtures/auth.ts
import { test as base, Page } from '@playwright/test';

export const test = base.extend<{ authenticatedPage: Page }>({
  authenticatedPage: async ({ page }, use) => {
    await page.goto('/login');
    await page.getByLabel('Email').fill('test@example.com');
    await page.getByLabel('Password').fill('password');
    await page.getByRole('button', { name: 'Sign in' }).click();
    await page.waitForURL(/\/dashboard/);
    await use(page);
  }
});

// Use in tests
test('test 1', async ({ authenticatedPage }) => {
  // Already logged in
});

Better (With Playwright Utils):

// Use built-in auth-session fixture
import { test as base } from '@playwright/test';
import { createAuthFixtures } from '@seontechnologies/playwright-utils/auth-session';

export const test = base.extend(createAuthFixtures());

// Use in tests - even simpler
test('test 1', async ({ page, authToken }) => {
  // authToken already available (persisted, reused)
  await page.goto('/dashboard');
  // Already authenticated via authToken
});

Playwright Utils Benefits:

Token persisted to disk (faster subsequent runs)
Multi-user support out of the box
Automatic token renewal if expired
No manual login flow needed

2. Add Network Assertions

File: tests/e2e/api-calls.spec.ts Issue: No verification of API responses Severity: Low Impact: Tests don’t catch API errors

Current:

await page.click('button[name="save"]');
await expect(page.locator('.success')).toBeVisible();
// ❌ What if API returned 500 but UI shows cached success?

Enhancement:

const responsePromise = page.waitForResponse(
  resp => resp.url().includes('/api/profile') && resp.status() === 200
);
await page.click('button[name="save"]');
const response = await responsePromise;

// Verify API response
const data = await response.json();
expect(data.success).toBe(true);

// Verify UI
await expect(page.locator('.success')).toBeVisible();

3. Improve Test Names

File: tests/e2e/checkout.spec.ts Issue: Vague test names Severity: Low Impact: Hard to understand test purpose

Current:

test('should work', async ({ page }) => { });
test('test checkout', async ({ page }) => { });

Better:

test('should complete checkout with valid credit card', async ({ page }) => { });
test('should show validation error for expired card', async ({ page }) => { });

Quality Scores by Category

Category	Score	Target	Status
Determinism	26/35	30/35	⚠️ Needs Improvement
Isolation	22/25	20/25	✅ Good
Assertions	18/20	16/20	✅ Good
Structure	7/10	8/10	⚠️ Minor Issues
Performance	3/10	8/10	❌ Critical

Scoring Breakdown

Determinism (35 points max):

No hard waits: 0/10 ❌ (found 3 instances)
No conditionals: 8/10 ⚠️ (found 2 instances)
No try-catch flow control: 10/10 ✅
Network-first patterns: 8/15 ⚠️ (some tests missing)

Isolation (25 points max):

Self-cleaning: 20/20 ✅
No global state: 5/5 ✅
Parallel-safe: 0/0 ✅ (not tested)

Assertions (20 points max):

Explicit in test body: 15/15 ✅
Specific and meaningful: 3/5 ⚠️ (some weak assertions)

Structure (10 points max):

Test size < 300 lines: 5/5 ✅
Clear names: 2/5 ⚠️ (some vague names)

Performance (10 points max):

Execution time < 1.5 min: 3/10 ❌ (3 tests exceed limit)

Files Reviewed

File	Score	Issues	Status
`tests/e2e/checkout.spec.ts`	65/100	4	❌ Needs Work
`tests/e2e/profile.spec.ts`	72/100	3	⚠️ Needs Improvement
`tests/e2e/search.spec.ts`	88/100	1	✅ Good
`tests/api/profile.spec.ts`	92/100	0	✅ Excellent

Next Steps

Immediate (Fix Critical Issues)

Remove hard waits in checkout.spec.ts (line 45, 67, 89)
Fix conditional in profile.spec.ts (line 28)
Optimize slow tests in checkout.spec.ts

Short-term (Apply Recommendations)

Extract login fixture from profile.spec.ts
Add network assertions to api-calls.spec.ts
Improve test names in checkout.spec.ts

Long-term (Continuous Improvement)

Re-run test-review after fixes (target: 85/100)
Add performance budgets to CI
Document test patterns for team

Knowledge Base References

TEA reviewed against these patterns:

test-quality.md - Execution limits, isolation
network-first.md - Deterministic waits
timing-debugging.md - Race conditions
selector-resilience.md - Robust selectors

## Understanding the Scores

### What Do Scores Mean?

| Score Range | Interpretation | Action |
|-------------|----------------|--------|
| **90-100** | Excellent | Minimal changes needed, production-ready |
| **80-89** | Good | Minor improvements recommended |
| **70-79** | Acceptable | Address recommendations before release |
| **60-69** | Needs Improvement | Fix critical issues, apply recommendations |
| **< 60** | Critical | Significant refactoring needed |

### Scoring Criteria

**Determinism (35 points):**
- Tests produce same result every run
- No random failures (flakiness)
- No environment-dependent behavior

**Isolation (25 points):**
- Tests don't depend on each other
- Can run in any order
- Clean up after themselves

**Assertions (20 points):**
- Verify actual behavior
- Specific and meaningful
- Not abstracted away in helpers

**Structure (10 points):**
- Readable and maintainable
- Appropriate size
- Clear naming

**Performance (10 points):**
- Fast execution
- Efficient selectors
- No unnecessary waits

## What You Get

### Quality Report
- Overall score (0-100)
- Category scores (Determinism, Isolation, etc.)
- File-by-file breakdown

### Critical Issues
- Specific line numbers
- Code examples (current vs fixed)
- Why it matters explanation
- Impact assessment

### Recommendations
- Actionable improvements
- Code examples
- Priority/severity levels

### Next Steps
- Immediate actions (fix critical)
- Short-term improvements
- Long-term quality goals

## Tips

### Review Before Release

Make test review part of release checklist:

```markdown
## Release Checklist
- [ ] All tests passing
- [ ] Test review score > 80
- [ ] Critical issues resolved
- [ ] Performance within budget

Review After AI Generation

Always review AI-generated tests:

1. Run atdd or automate
2. Run test-review on generated tests
3. Fix critical issues
4. Commit tests

Set Quality Gates

Use scores as quality gates:

- name: Review test quality
  run: |
    # Run test review
    # Parse score from report
    if [ $SCORE -lt 80 ]; then
      echo "Test quality below threshold"
      exit 1
    fi

Review Regularly

Schedule periodic reviews:

Per story: Optional (spot check new tests)
Per epic: Recommended (ensure consistency)
Per release: Recommended for quality gates (required if using formal gate process)
Quarterly: Audit entire suite

Focus Reviews

For large suites, review incrementally:

Week 1: Review E2E tests Week 2: Review API tests Week 3: Review component tests (Cypress CT or Vitest) Week 4: Apply fixes across all suites

Component Testing Note: TEA reviews component tests using framework-specific knowledge:

Cypress: Reviews Cypress Component Testing specs (*.cy.tsx)
Playwright: Reviews Vitest component tests (*.test.tsx)

Use Reviews for Learning

Share reports with team:

Team Meeting:
- Review test-review.md
- Discuss critical issues
- Agree on patterns
- Update team guidelines

Compare Over Time

Track improvement:

## Quality Trend

| Date | Score | Critical Issues | Notes |
|------|-------|-----------------|-------|
| 2026-01-01 | 65 | 5 | Baseline |
| 2026-01-15 | 72 | 2 | Fixed hard waits |
| 2026-02-01 | 84 | 0 | All critical resolved |

Common Issues

Low Determinism Score

Symptoms:

Tests fail randomly
“Works on my machine”
CI failures that don’t reproduce locally

Common Causes:

Hard waits (waitForTimeout)
Conditional flow control (if/else)
Try-catch for flow control
Missing network-first patterns

Fix: Review determinism section, apply network-first patterns

Low Performance Score

Symptoms:

Tests take > 1.5 minutes each
Test suite takes hours
CI times out

Common Causes:

Unnecessary waits (hard timeouts)
Inefficient selectors (XPath, complex CSS)
Not using parallelization
Heavy setup in every test

Fix: Optimize waits, improve selectors, use fixtures

Low Isolation Score

Symptoms:

Tests fail when run in different order
Tests fail in parallel
Test data conflicts

Common Causes:

Shared global state
Tests don’t clean up
Hard-coded test data
Database not reset between tests

Fix: Use fixtures, clean up in afterEach, use unique test data

”Too Many Issues to Fix”

Problem: Report shows 50+ issues, overwhelming.

Solution: Prioritize:

Fix all critical issues first
Apply top 3 recommendations
Re-run review
Iterate

Don’t try to fix everything at once.

Reviews Take Too Long

Problem: Reviewing entire suite takes hours.

Solution: Review incrementally:

Review new tests in PR review
Schedule directory reviews weekly
Full suite review quarterly

How to Run ATDD - Generate tests to review
How to Run Automate - Expand coverage to review
How to Run Trace - Coverage complements quality

Understanding the Concepts

Test Quality Standards - What makes tests good
Network-First Patterns - Avoiding flakiness
Fixture Architecture - Reusable patterns

Reference

Command: *test-review - Full command reference
Knowledge Base Index - Patterns TEA reviews against

Generated with BMad Method - TEA (Test Architect)

How to Run Test Review with TEA

How to Run Test Review with TEA

When to Use This

Prerequisites

Steps

1. Load TEA Agent

2. Run the Test Review Workflow

3. Specify Review Scope

Option A: Single File

Option B: Directory

Option C: Entire Suite

4. Review the Quality Report

Report Structure (test-review.md):

2. Conditional Flow Control

Recommendations

1. Extract Repeated Setup

2. Add Network Assertions

3. Improve Test Names

Quality Scores by Category

Scoring Breakdown

Files Reviewed

Next Steps

Immediate (Fix Critical Issues)

Short-term (Apply Recommendations)

Long-term (Continuous Improvement)

Knowledge Base References

Review After AI Generation

Set Quality Gates

Review Regularly

Focus Reviews

Use Reviews for Learning

Compare Over Time

Common Issues

Low Determinism Score

Low Performance Score

Low Isolation Score

”Too Many Issues to Fix”

Reviews Take Too Long

Related Guides

Understanding the Concepts

Reference

Report Structure (`test-review.md`):