Visual QA Loop

Visual QA Loop

For UI work, "tests pass" is not the same as "eyes pass."

Third-order stance: static screenshots are receipts, not the whole truth. Look for temporal debt, hidden friction, and trust changes between states: loading, empty, error, hover, focus, permission prompts, and the moment after a user clicks.

When to Use

• The user asks for visual QA, screenshots, design polish, UI review, hover/focus review, or before/after proof
• A frontend/macOS/iOS UI change might alter layout, copy, color, spacing, or trust perception
• The user wants assurance changes are tweaks, not accidental replacement

When NOT to Use

• Pure backend or CLI changes with no visual surface
• The app cannot be rendered locally and no screenshot path exists
• The user explicitly says not to do visual validation

Phase 1: Pick Stable Targets

Identify the exact pages/windows/states to capture. Prefer the smallest set that covers the changed surface. Include transition states when relevant: loading, empty, error, first-run, disabled, hover/focus, and post-action success/failure.

For web/file targets on this machine, use chrome-shot rather than raw Chrome commands:

mkdir -p ~/dev/agent-notes/<project>/visual-qa/<run>
chrome-shot -o ~/dev/agent-notes/<project>/visual-qa/<run>/home-1440.png http://localhost:3000/
chrome-shot --size 390x1200 -o ~/dev/agent-notes/<project>/visual-qa/<run>/home-mobile.png http://localhost:3000/

Phase 2: Capture Before and After

If changes are not applied yet, capture before/. After edits/build, capture after/ with the same viewport, route, data, and state.

Use filenames that encode route/state/viewport, not verbose captions. If the issue may be motion/jank, capture a short trace, repeated screenshots, or before/after states around the transition rather than only the final settled UI.

Phase 3: Review Like a User

Check:

• layout shifts, overflow, clipping
• copy drift or confusing labels
• hover/focus/selected states too loud or too invisible
• trust fractures: surprise permissions, privacy creep, pricing ambiguity, destructive actions
• mobile density and tap targets
• empty/error/loading states when relevant
• information density: high-signal details should not disappear behind unnecessary hover/clicks
• temporal debt: flicker, layout shift, stale preview, delayed permission prompt, or post-click ambiguity
• downstream friction: a small visual change near a CTA, filename, price, or destructive action can be larger than its pixel area

Phase 4: Iterate Once Before Reporting

If an obvious regression is visible, fix it and recapture. Do not hand back known-bad screenshots unless blocked.

Phase 5: Report Evidence

Return:

• screenshot artifact paths
• what changed visually
• pass/fail verdict
• any remaining concerns
• any "looks fine but may feel wrong over time" temporal/friction concerns

Keep it short. The screenshots are the receipts.

• Use trust-audit when the visual surface touches permissions, privacy, billing, or destructive file changes.
• Use status-copy-trust-audit when UI/CLI wording is the confusing part.
• Use first-contact when the visual change touches onboarding or day-zero mental models.
• Use agent-log-forensics when recurring user complaints point at visual or interaction jank across sessions.