Thanks for writing this up. I think QA has a huge potential to help teams release work confidently with a low cost. Adding some comments:
I can see a TUIST.md or QA.md that contains this information. The claude code CLI has a /init command that people can run, so I can see a similar workflow where the agent would spend some time navigating around the app, and capturing all possible workflows to speed up future runs.
Name-wise, I wonder if we should use the following termonology instead of “insights”:
- Feature: Tuist QA
- Individual execution: QA Session
- Result: Report
I’d play with asking the agent to categorize errors, such that developers can filter and sort using the category (e.g. UI misalignments, broken flows, erroring flows). As we know more about the types of errors that happen, that’s information that we can pass to the agent before starting the session.
What other information can we collect without a development SDK? I assume the logs? I’d also check if we can get the UserDefaults and the Keychain values.
Profiles
Additioinally, I was wondering whether we should have the concept of “profiles”. For example, if youa re interested in taking a “design” or “linguistic” angles to the review, you can select that profile, and we’ll pass additional context to the agent so that they place the focus on some dimensions. Or maybe it’s just fine to say focus on everything since the agent will navigate the app anyways.