A fixed sleep hides the question a UI test actually needs to answer: which observable state says the page is ready, and what should happen if it never arrives?
Why this Skill is needed
The UI Test Wait Strategy Review Skill reviews waits from asynchronous states, network and rendering events, observable conditions, polling, timeout configuration, failure traces, retries, and fixed sleeps. It produces UWR-## findings.
What the Skill does
The wait should observe the product state that matters, not merely consume time.
Use this Skill to identify brittle or misleading waits in UI automation without executing tests or treating a wait pattern as coverage or pass evidence.
A good UWR finding names the asynchronous subject, expected condition, timeout, polling or event source, failure behavior, source evidence, owner, close condition, and validation.
Use it when UI tests use fixed sleeps, timeouts are frequently changed, or failures do not reveal whether the page was actually ready.
What it does not do
The UI Test Wait Strategy Review Skill can organize material, evidence, and next actions for Wait finding. It does not replace:
- Confirmation of rules, scope, and risk by the accountable domain owner.
- A real environment, account, dataset, log, or run record; static analysis does not become runtime evidence by itself.
- Authorization for release, compliance, production actions, or residual-risk acceptance.
- A Human decision when supplied sources conflict.
What it checks
The value of this Skill is not another keyword list. It connects each focus area to an observable input, a judgment, and a way to close the loop. Start with a small matrix based on the source Skill’s output contract:
| Focus | Question before analysis | Handoff output |
|---|---|---|
| Wait finding | Fixed sleep, weak condition, polling, retry, or timeout issue | UWR ID and source |
| Observable condition | State that actually proves readiness | DOM, event, or API evidence |
| Failure boundary | What happens when the condition never arrives | Timeout and diagnostic |
| Validation action | Smallest replay or instrumentation check | NOT_RUN until executed |
If a row has only a conventional expectation and no source or validation method, keep it open instead of turning it into a pass.
Audit inputs before you start
Before analyzing Wait finding, classify the input into six evidence states. A gap is not automatically a failure, but it must not disappear inside the conclusion.
| State | Meaning | How this Skill should handle it |
|---|---|---|
| known | Directly supported by the supplied material | Keep the source, version, and time with the judgment |
| missing | Needed for this pass but not supplied | Name the smallest evidence action and limit the conclusion |
| conflicting | Sources disagree | Show both sources and route the conflict to an owner |
| stale | Present but outside the relevant version or time window | Mark freshness; old evidence is not current proof |
| out_of_scope | Related but excluded from this pass | Keep the boundary explicit |
| assumptions | Temporarily adopted to continue analysis | State how and when the assumption will be checked |
Keep the input version, scope, environment, evidence locations, and accountable owner together. Without a run record, deliver analysis, design, or a validation plan—not an execution pass.
From problem to structured Finding
Connect the source, scope, evidence state, analysis, owner, action, close condition, and validation before writing the conclusion. The case below keeps this Skill’s identifier and domain context.
Keep the decision layers separate
For Wait finding, do not compress four different kinds of language into “recommended to pass”:
| Layer | How to write it | Application here |
|---|---|---|
| Fact | What the supplied material directly shows | Cite the source, version, input, or run record for the focus |
| Evidence-backed Inference | What several facts support together | Show the inference chain and retain uncertainty |
| Recommendation | The smallest next action | Name the evidence, review, execution, or regression path |
| Human Decision | What an accountable person must decide | Leave scope, risk acceptance, resources, and release meaning to the owner |
A complete case
This case follows Input, Analysis, Finding, Decision, and Validation. When material is incomplete, keep missing, conflicting, or assumptions visible instead of turning them into a pass.
Input
| Material | What to provide | What to do when it is missing |
|---|---|---|
| Async behavior | Network, rendering, animation, polling, websocket, or background job state | Keep unknown readiness unassessed |
| Test wait code | Sleep, locator wait, event, polling, timeout, retry, and assertion | Review the whole sequence |
| Failure evidence | Trace, screenshot, network log, timing, and environment | Do not infer runtime from code alone |
| Boundary | Expected user-visible state, stop condition, and owner | Keep Human timing choices visible |
Use a request like this:
Use the ui-test-wait-strategy-review Skill.
Task: Review a search-result UI test that sleeps five seconds before asserting the result list.
Inputs: [test code, network trace, DOM states, timeout config, failure screenshots, browser environment]
Scope: [search loading, empty, error, and result states]
Constraints: [do not execute or edit the test]
Produce UWR-## findings with subject, expected condition, evidence, concern, impact, owner, close condition, and validation method.Analysis
Use the input, matrix, and evidence state to form the judgment before writing the Finding; keep missing material as a gap.
Finding
Focused example: Replace a five-second search sleep with a state check
The test sleeps five seconds, but the search result list can be empty, error, or stale. The Skill should ask for a stable loading-to-result or error condition, preserve timeout and diagnostic needs, and avoid choosing an arbitrary shorter sleep as the fix.
The review identifies wait-quality candidates. It cannot prove timing stability, absence of flakes, or UI coverage without execution evidence.
Example finding: turn one problem into a handoff
The field example below shows the recording pattern; it is not an execution result.
If the supplied material cannot prove that Wait finding meets its contract, write the finding like this. It does not invent the missing rule or turn missing evidence into a failure.
| Field | Example wording |
|---|---|
| Source and scope | Record the requirement, version, environment, and the concrete object for Wait finding |
| Finding | The condition or result for Wait finding is not yet traceable to evidence |
| Evidence state | missing / assumptions; use conflicting when sources disagree |
| Impact and priority | Name the affected user, journey, or delivery decision without inflating severity |
| Owner and Human decision | Ask the product, engineering, security, or test owner to confirm the rule and trade-off |
| Action and close condition | Add the smallest missing evidence; close only when source, judgment, and owner can be reviewed |
| Validation | Name one repeatable check, query, or run and retain the raw artifact |
The point is to let the next person walk from the finding back to the source and run an action that can change the decision.
Decision
The accountable owner confirms the decision question and risk trade-off; the Skill does not make that choice.
Validation
Before closing the finding, run the stated validation and retain the raw artifact. Without an execution record, the status remains unverified.
How a Finding enters the next stage
Handoff output
| Output field | Why it exists | Example status |
|---|---|---|
| Wait finding | Fixed sleep, weak condition, polling, retry, or timeout issue | UWR ID and source |
| Observable condition | State that actually proves readiness | DOM, event, or API evidence |
| Failure boundary | What happens when the condition never arrives | Timeout and diagnostic |
| Validation action | Smallest replay or instrumentation check | NOT_RUN until executed |
Every conclusion should point to a source, evidence state, and next action. If evidence is missing, use pending, blocked, unassessed, or NOT_SCORED instead of filling the gap with confidence.
Next-stage route
At minimum, hand off the source, evidence state, owner, close condition, and validation action; the next-stage conclusion remains bounded by the evidence state.
How to prepare better input
Provide the wait code, component states, network/rendering events, timeout and retry config, failure traces, browser scope, and expected user-visible condition. Keep missing event evidence pending.
A useful handoff includes input versions, scope, time window, evidence index, assumptions, Human decision boundary, and the smallest validation action.
Working with other Skills
- UI Test Selector Review:helps identify the stable element or state.
- Timeout Testing:examines timeout budgets and cancellation.
- Test Code Review:reviews assertion and fixture interactions.
Common traps
- Replacing one fixed sleep with another number.
- Waiting for an element to exist when it may still be hidden, stale, or loading.
- Retrying a timeout without retaining the first failure’s diagnostic evidence.
Install and invoke
npx skills add https://github.com/naodeng/awesome-qa-skills/tree/main/skills/en/testing-types/ui-test-wait-strategy-review -gUse the ui-test-wait-strategy-review Skill.
Include objective, scope, versions, evidence paths, constraints, and decision boundary.
Audit inputs first, preserve evidence states, and finish with owner, close condition, and validation method.FAQ
Are explicit waits always better than sleeps?
Only when the condition is meaningful and observable. A weak condition can be as misleading as a sleep.
Should a UI wait retry automatically?
Not by default. Review whether retry hides a product defect, a selector issue, or a real transient state.
The Skill is most useful when attached to one real project artifact and kept with its source evidence. Start narrow, validate the uncertain part, and expand only when evidence supports it.
References
Source Skill and execution contract
The complete execution contract lives in UI Test Wait Strategy Review prompt. The source directory may also contain evaluation cases and supporting material.
Static plans, file presence, and dry runs keep their evidence state. They do not become runtime proof, an all-passed claim, or release approval.
Reference links
- UI Test Wait Strategy Review prompt:https://github.com/naodeng/awesome-qa-skills/tree/main/skills/en/testing-types/ui-test-wait-strategy-review/prompts/ui-test-wait-strategy-review.md
- UI Test Wait Strategy Review Skill source:https://github.com/naodeng/awesome-qa-skills/tree/main/skills/en/testing-types/ui-test-wait-strategy-review
- UI Test Wait Strategy Review details:https://inaodeng.com/en/qaskills/ui-test-wait-strategy-review/
- Awesome QA Skills on GitHub:https://github.com/naodeng/awesome-qa-skills