Explore Feature
SkillDev toolsWhen you have just changed some code, this skill lets your AI pick the one flow worth testing end to end and write that test for you. It reads the ticket and the code you changed, then hands the writing off to the writing-e2e-tests skill, so you end up with a Playwright spec you can add to your pull request.
Available today. Use it from your connected AI after setup.
No other account needed.
Add the skill, then ask for a test with something like 'explore this feature' or 'add a test for my PR'. Mention the ticket or PR number if you have one so it knows what to read.
Then ask your AI: use the Explore Feature skill
What your AI can do with it
- Pick the single flow in your change that most deserves an end-to-end test
- Read a ticket to understand what the change is meant to do
- Look at the code you changed to ground the test in actual behavior
- Write a Playwright spec for the chosen flow
- Delegate the test authoring to the writing-e2e-tests skill
- Respond to requests like 'test my branch' or 'cover the feature in PR #7303'
What this skill tells your AI
The instructions your AI receives, as published by comet-ml/opik in .agents/skills/explore-feature/SKILL.md and read by ahel’s review.
Turns "here's my change, cover it" into one committed, locally-green Playwright spec.
It is a thin orchestrator: it owns two phases — resolve what to cover, and confirm the result —
and delegates the actual authoring (analyze FE, discover live UI, write POM/spec, run green) to
the writing-e2e-tests skill.
Announce at start: "I'm using the explore-feature skill to add an e2e test for X."
What this does — and doesn't
- Does: resolve the change surface → pick the one flow worth covering → hand it to
writing-e2e-tests→ confirm the spec is tagged, in the taxonomy, and green. - Doesn't: deep bug-hunting or edge-case coverage (that's a separate QA activity); CI wiring.
- Cheap per-PR happy-path only. One flow, green locally in minutes.
The output is an ordinary spec: tests/<area>/<name>.spec.ts, a tier tag, an @area:, a @cap:
per test — exactly what every other spec in the estate looks like, and picked up by the same
suites. There is no separate lane and no version stamp.
The loop
digraph explore_feature {
rankdir=TB;
"1. Resolve scope (GATE)" [shape=box];
"2. Local-run gate (GATE)" [shape=box];
"3. Delegate authoring to writing-e2e-tests" [shape=box];
"4. Confirm tagged + green" [shape=box];
"1. Resolve scope (GATE)" -> "2. Local-run gate (GATE)";
"2. Local-run gate (GATE)" -> "3. Delegate authoring to writing-e2e-tests";
"3. Delegate authoring to writing-e2e-tests" -> "4. Confirm tagged + green";
}
Phase 1 — Resolve scope (gate)
Normalize whatever the dev pointed at into one ScopeSpec before authoring anything.
Input modes (auto-detect from the argument; ask if ambiguous):
| Mode | Trigger | Resolve |
|---|---|---|
| Local diff | no arg / dirty tree / "my branch" / "my changes" | see Local-diff mode below — this is the default when no PR is named, incl. "I haven't opened a PR yet" |
| A PR | #<n> or a PR URL | PR diff + linked ticket via gh pr view <n> --json … (or the GitHub MCP) |
| Multi-PR / multi-ticket | a list | union of the diffs |
Local-diff mode — a dev running this on their branch before (or without) a PR. Capture the full change surface, not just committed work — pre-PR work is often uncommitted:
base=$(git merge-base origin/main HEAD)
git diff --name-only "$base"...HEAD # committed on the branch
git diff --name-only HEAD # unstaged working-tree changes
git diff --name-only --cached # staged but uncommitted
git ls-files --others --exclude-standard # new untracked files
Union those for changedFiles. If all four are empty, there's nothing to cover — say so and stop.
Produce the ScopeSpec:
tickets[]— for naming and the PR description, if there are any. A ticket key in the branch name (andreic/OPIK-1234-…→OPIK-1234) is the usual source. Never invent one; the spec name should describe the behaviour anyway, not the ticket.changedFiles[]— the FE/BE change surface.area— the taxonomy area the change belongs to, fromtests_end_to_end/coverage/taxonomy.yaml. This decides the directory:tests/<area>/.targetPath=tests_end_to_end/e2e/tests/<area>/<name>.spec.ts— new, or an existing spec in that directory to extend. Prefer extending: a newtest()in the area's existing spec beats a new file when the setup is the same.capabilities[]— the@cap:keys this will cover, grepped from the taxonomy. They usually already exist ascovered: false. If nothing fits, add the entry — a kebab-case name for the user-facing capability.tier—@t1-smokefor fast deterministic core checks,@t2-cujfor multi-step journeys and anything destructive,@t3-nightlyfor slower/broader. Tier is chosen by how often it should run, not by importance; anything spending real LLM budget is not t1.happyPath— the one end-to-end flow to cover. Multi-PR → the combined assembled-feature flow, as one test.
Three things to resolve while shaping the happy path — each caught a false or unbuildable test in piloting:
- Fix PRs — cover the repro, not the easy path. For a
fix:, the happy path must exercise the exact condition the bug needed. If the state can be reached two ways and only one triggered the bug (e.g. a trace shows the bug only whensource=sdkvia manual reference-linking, not viaevaluate()), seeding the easy way makes the test pass against the pre-fix code too — a vacuous test. Identify the repro condition from the PR's root-cause description and seed that shape. - N equivalent surfaces — cover the most representative one. If the change fixes the same behavior in several places (e.g. experiment "Go to logs", a shared sidebar, and a Playground cell link), don't try to cover them all — pick the single most representative entry point and tell the dev which ones you left. Keeps it cheap.
- Seeding is part of the deliverable, not a precondition. Work out early how the happy path's
state gets created — an existing fixture, an SDK client, or the bridge (
services/opik-sdk-driver). If the shape the repro needs isn't reachable through the current surface (e.g. the bridge only exposesevaluate()but the bug needs a manualclient.trace(source=...)+ExperimentItemReferencesshape), that seeding support is yours to add as part of authoring — extend the bridge route / add a fixture / use the SDK client directly — then write the test on top of it. Adding a fixture is normal, not scope creep. The only real stop is if the state cannot be produced through any public SDK / bridgeable path at all (rare) — then flag it, because it likely means the feature isn't end-to-end testable yet.
Two gates here, before expensive authoring:
- Scope gate — state the resolved happy path + repro seed shape + target path + tier + the
@cap:keys back to the dev and get a yes. If seeding the repro needs new bridge/fixture support, say so here so the dev knows this work also touchesservices/opik-sdk-driveror the fixtures. Multi-PR especially: "One test in<area>/<name>.spec.tscovering X→Y→Z,@t2-cuj. OK?" - Skip check — if the change is pure refactor / infra / docs with no user-facing behavior, say
so and stop. Note two cases that are user-facing even though they look like config: a
capability-map / constants change that adds a user-visible option (e.g. a new model in a
dropdown → happy path: "open the page, the option is selectable"), and a backend-dominant change
whose only visible effect is subtle (e.g. a trace that should not appear in a default list) —
find the user-observable effect and cover that, don't skip. The opposite case also happens: a
perf / internals change with no behavior delta by design (e.g. swapping a slow probe for a
fast one, same rendered result). There's no PR-specific happy path — so either cover a generic
regression on the affected page and say so, or skip-with-a-note if the suite already covers that
page. Don't dress a generic regression up as PR-specific coverage. Two things to get right
here: (a) skip vs cover turns on coverage of the specific state/decision the change
governs, not the page as a whole — grep the existing suite (
tests_end_to_end/e2e/tests) for that exact state. A page whose populated path is covered but whose empty/onboarding path (the branch a probe like this actually drives) is not is not "already covered" — cover the uncovered half. Skip-with-a-note only when the specific state is genuinely already asserted somewhere. (b) This is afix:PR, so the "repro condition" mandate seems to apply — but a no-behavior-delta fix has no repro that renders differently pre/post. The perf-fix escape hatch overrides the repro mandate: say "N/A — no behavior delta; generic regression" and label it generic. A generic test that passes on both the pre- and post-fix build is correct, not a bug — say so when you report back.
Phase 2 — Local-run gate
Before authoring can be verified, confirm the dev has a local stack with their changes:
-
Probe for a running stack — the frontend (
http://localhost:5173, or:5174for FE-from-source) and the backend, the way the suite reaches it:GET <baseUrl>/api/is-alive/ver(e.g.http://localhost:5173/api/is-alive/ver). A standardopik.shcompose stack does not expose the backend on a bare:8080— the FE proxies/apito it, and that proxied path returning a{"version": …}JSON is the real "backend is up" signal. A FE that answers on/but 000s on/api/is-alive/veris a half-up stack: every seeded test fails on the first API call for env reasons, not the feature. Require the/apihealth check to pass, not just "/answers on 5173." Note the returned version — it tells you which build is running (see step 2). -
Gate the dev: confirm the running stack actually contains their changes. A stale prebuilt
opik.shstack won't show newdata-testids — if the feature adds testids, the dev must be on FE-from-source:5174(dev-runner --restart). Verify the change is actually in the served build, not just that a FE answers: for a FE-only PR merged to main,curl http://localhost:5174/src/<changed-file>and grep for a symbol the PR added (Vite serves source), and/or checkgit merge-base --is-ancestor <merge-sha> HEAD. "The dev server is up" is not "the fix is present." -
If nothing is running / it's the wrong stack: offer to spin it (
local-dev/dev-runner) or ask the dev to bring it up with their changes, then proceed. Never silently run against a stack lacking the feature — that produces false-green or false-missing-testid results.Worktree gotcha (FE-from-source against a prebuilt backend).
dev-runner.shis worktree-aware: in a worktree it offsets every port from a per-worktree hash and starts its own JAR-mode backend against a fresh, empty DB — so--restartthere does not reuse the healthyopik.shdocker DB, and FE-from-source may not land on:5174. When you need FE-with-the-fix on top of an existing seeded docker backend, the reliable path is to run the Vite dev server directly with pinned ports and point its/apiproxy at the running backend:- The
opik.shbackend container usually publishes only its internal port to a random host port (docker port opik-<proj>-backend-1), not:8080. Vite's/apiproxy strips/apiand needs a bare backend, so bridge the container's app port to host:8080on the compose network, e.g.docker run -d --name opik-be-8080 --network <compose_net> -p 8080:8080 alpine/socat tcp-listen:8080,fork,reuseaddr tcp-connect:opik-<proj>-backend-1:8080. - Then
cd apps/opik-frontend && npm ci && VITE_DEV_PORT=5174 VITE_BACKEND_PORT=8080 npm run start. - Point the suite at it:
OPIK_BASE_URL=http://localhost:5174 OPIK_DEPLOYMENT=oss. OSS needs no auth. Tear down the socat container when done.
- The
Phase 3 — Delegate authoring to writing-e2e-tests
Invoke the writing-e2e-tests skill to do the analyze → discover-live-UI → write → run-green loop.
Hand it the ScopeSpec: the target path, the tier + @area: + @cap: tags, the happy path and its
seed shape, and "verify green against the dev's local stack."
That skill owns the conventions — test.step() wrapping, UI-first assertions, selector preference,
SDK-only seeding, fixture-owned teardown, and the taxonomy update. Don't restate them here; read
.agents/skills/writing-e2e-tests/conventions.md if you need them.
Phase 4 — Confirm
- The spec exists at
targetPath, tagged with one tier +@area:<area>, with a@cap:per test. - Those
@area:/@cap:values resolve intests_end_to_end/coverage/taxonomy.yaml, and the taxonomy was updated in the same change (spec added tospecs:, covered capabilities flipped tocovered: truewith the tier). tag_lint.pyreports0 problem(s)— this is the CItag-lintjob, so a miss here is a red build:python3 tests_end_to_end/coverage/tag_lint.py --taxonomy tests_end_to_end/coverage/taxonomy.yaml --estate tests_end_to_end- It runs green locally, and so does the rest of its feature directory — a shared POM or fixture is
used by sibling specs:
cd tests_end_to_end/e2e && npx playwright test tests/<area>/ --reporter=list npx tsc --noEmit - Report the committed spec path back to the dev, plus anything you deliberately left uncovered (the other N surfaces, edge cases) so they know the boundary.
Ownership
QA owns this skill. When a generated test misses something, the fix lands in this skill's files —
this is the feedback loop. Edit in .agents/skills/explore-feature/, then make claude to mirror
for local testing.
Signals
- GitHub stars
- 22k
- Forks
- 2k
- Last commit
- Sep 2026
Advanced
- Catalog kind
- skill
- Gateway key
explore-feature- Source
- github.com/comet-ml/opik