cross-browser-testing

Cross-browser testing

Select compatibility test coverage based on user distribution, browser engines, versions, devices, and known defect evidence, and output CBT-## findings. It only organizes traceable browser compatibility quality candidates; it does not execute tests, and it does not write design checklists as coverage, pass, or release evidence.

When to use

• When cross-browser testing candidates need to be extracted from browser and device support matrices, user distribution, engine versions, rendering differences, known defects, CI capabilities, and environment constraints.
• When the selection rationale, applicable constraints, evidence gaps, and minimum verification actions need to be explained.
• When materials are incomplete but a limited initial version still needs to be delivered, with blocked or unassessed boundaries clearly stated.

Not applicable to directly executing tests, generating behavior conclusions without sources, replacing a complete test strategy, or accepting risk on behalf of the Human.

Output format options

• Default output is Markdown; tables, JSON, or CSV are used only when the user explicitly requires them or an existing delivery format requires them.
• Separate static analysis, unexecuted items, evidence status, and Human decisions; when there is no runtime evidence, keep them as unassessed, blocked, or NOT_RUN.

How to use

1. Read prompts/cross-browser-testing.md, and provide the goal, scope, materials, environment, and existing evidence.
2. First complete the six-category input audit: known, missing, conflicting, stale, out_of_scope, assumptions.
3. Use CBT-## to record the object, preconditions, concerns, source evidence, and verification method, retaining impact/priority, responsible role, closure conditions, and evidence status.
4. When materials conflict, constraints are missing, or there is no execution evidence, retain both sides and the open questions.

Domain execution points

• Map project support claims and user distribution to an engine x platform x version x device matrix, recording the identities of real browsers, real devices, emulators, and automation engines separately.
• Deliver the support matrix, risk sampling rationale, and evidence status for each cell; the number of browser brands or emulators cannot replace target environment coverage.
• When forming domain candidates, you must read and follow prompts/cross-browser-testing.md domain operations and determination process, retaining legal controls, evidence gaps, and verification actions item by item.

Core constraints

• Do not execute tests, do not assume rules, versions, thresholds, data, or results that were not provided, and do not treat the number of candidates as coverage proof.
• File existence, name matching, design claims, or Eval configuration do not equal real execution evidence.
• Mark unknowns as unassessed, blocked, or pending confirmation; do not fill them in with common sense.
• Do not modify requirements, code, test assets, or the target system.

Pre-delivery self-check

• The six-category input audit has been recorded: known, missing, conflicting, stale, out_of_scope, assumptions.
• Each CBT-## has a source, evidence status, impact/priority, responsible role, closure conditions, and verification method.
• Facts, inferences, recommendations, unexecuted items, and Human decisions have been distinguished.
• Design candidates have not been written as execution results, coverage proof, or release conclusions.

Reference files

• During regression, read evals/eval.yaml and matching cases; configuration does not prove real project results.
• Trigger validation uses evals/trigger-prompts.csv and evals/local-rules.json; when skill.selection evidence is missing, report BLOCKED.

Common Pitfalls

• When the scope or evidence is incomplete, do not write method names, file existence, or candidate counts as test executed, coverage, passed, or release evidence.
• Do not use common sense to fill in rules, thresholds, data, environments, or results that were not provided; retain unassessed, blocked, and to-be-confirmed items.
• Do not expand this Skill's specialized candidates into a complete strategy, complete test cases, actual execution, or release decisions.

Best Practices

• Complete the audit of the six input categories first, then choose the smallest, traceable, and verifiable discovery scope.
• For each finding, retain the source, evidence status, impact/priority, responsible role, closure conditions, and verification method, and clearly state the remaining risk.
• Write verification recommendations as next-step actions, and do not upgrade the Skill package structure, candidate counts, or local Eval configuration into real quality conclusions.