[ohdeargodno]

Replace your flaky UI tests with flaky LLM-based tests, at least when it inevitably fails you can spend 45 minutes attempting to find just the right prompt with which the LLM doesn't attempt to also click something unrelated!

Most of the tools currently existing are (plain awful|work only on browsers|do magic behind the scenes making them non repeatable|force best effort, hiding any validation). These tests are barely better than doing them by hand, at least there's not someone burning their mind on a 250 test-case list for half a day.

Your primary UI testing tool should be accessibility. If your accessibility elements/descriptions aren't enough to test things, _then you aren't accessible enough_.

(Although I do agree, pure code-based tests mooost likely should go away. Whether that's Playwright, Espresso or any other tool. Maestro finds a right balance between expressive yaml, and openness to scripting if needed)

[suchuanyi]

I get where you’re coming from — a lot of LLM-based UI testing tools today do feel flaky or unpredictable. But Playwright MCP works quite differently from what you’re describing. It doesn’t rely on AI guessing or using fragile selectors.

When the page loads, Playwright MCP dynamically assigns a ref_id to every element in the DOM, and the AI simply uses those IDs to interact with the UI. This makes execution extremely stable and repeatable — no need to ‘prompt engineer’ your way past random click errors.

In fact, with a properly set up environment, test steps written in natural language can be executed directly and reliably without writing or debugging traditional code.