WCAG specialist focused on criterion-level evidence across perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust behavior, without overstating automated scan results as conformance.
A perspective available to CARBON—not a claim that this tester has reviewed your project. Findings require execution evidence.
Compatibility specialist focused on browser, device, viewport, operating-system, assistive-technology, and support-matrix evidence, with explicit coverage gaps rather than assumed portability.
A perspective available to CARBON—not a claim that this tester has reviewed your project. Findings require execution evidence.
Performance specialist focused on user-visible latency, Core Web Vitals, payload and request cost, caching, API timing, scalability, mobile constraints, memory, and leaks.
A perspective available to CARBON—not a claim that this tester has reviewed your project. Findings require execution evidence.
Content and UX-writing specialist focused on page identity, clear copy, information architecture, credibility, navigation, status communication, readability, and content quality.
A perspective available to CARBON—not a claim that this tester has reviewed your project. Findings require execution evidence.
Forms specialist focused on input contracts, validation, boundaries, state, submission, recovery, data quality, conversion barriers, and accessible interaction.
A perspective available to CARBON—not a claim that this tester has reviewed your project. Findings require execution evidence.
First-impression and conversion specialist focused on value clarity, trust, navigation, calls to action, responsive composition, dead ends, and page credibility.
A perspective available to CARBON—not a claim that this tester has reviewed your project. Findings require execution evidence.
Checkout and payment specialist focused on order accuracy, address and payment input, trust, retry safety, pricing truth, completion, and conversion-blocking failures.
A perspective available to CARBON—not a claim that this tester has reviewed your project. Findings require execution evidence.
AI
Virtual AI tester
Priya
Shopping Cart Tester
Shopping-cart specialist focused on line-item state, quantities, promotions, totals, inventory changes, persistence, accessibility, and safe transition to checkout.
A perspective available to CARBON—not a claim that this tester has reviewed your project. Findings require execution evidence.
AI
Virtual AI tester
Mateo
Pricing Page Tester
Pricing and subscription specialist focused on plan clarity, comparison, currency and locale, hidden conditions, billing cadence, conversion paths, and truthful claims.
A perspective available to CARBON—not a claim that this tester has reviewed your project. Findings require execution evidence.
AI-generated-code specialist focused on logic, boundaries, null and empty states, failure handling, API use, security, privacy, tests, code smells, state, and misleading AI shortcuts.
A perspective available to CARBON—not a claim that this tester has reviewed your project. Findings require execution evidence.
Turn scattered quality assumptions into a project record.
Jason Arbon CEO, testers.ai
/carbon-confidence-init
AIJasonAI Code Review
The team discussed the risks last week. The agent does not know which
conversation mattered. The release document still says “add tests.”
Confidence is hard to build when its supporting knowledge has nowhere
durable to live.
/carbon-confidence-init initializes a project-local
confidence workspace: a system map, risk register, claim ledger, and
places for evaluations, incidents, traces, and release evidence.
The files are the starting
point
Creating folders is easy. The useful work is filling them with
concrete facts about this system.
For an assistant that searches customer documents, the boundary might
include retrieval, tenant permissions, model calls, tool access, and the
UI that presents the answer. “The AI could be wrong” is too broad. “An
answer must not cite a document outside the current tenant” is a claim
that can guide investigation.
CARBON inspects the available repository and replaces starter
material with the relevant boundaries, risks, and falsifiable claims.
Existing evidence should survive another initialization.
Begin with a feature-sized
boundary
/carbon-confidence-init initialize the evidence workspace for our document-search assistant; focus on tenant boundaries and unsupported answers
The resulting report explains what was initialized and what the
inspection established. It does not turn the new risk register into
evidence that the risks are controlled.
This is useful when a project is growing beyond what one conversation
can reliably hold. Future investigations have a place to start, and
reviewers can see the assumptions rather than reconstruct them from test
filenames.
You are not creating confidence by creating documents. You are
creating the structure that makes confidence possible to examine.
Install CARBON at testers.ai/carbon for a supported
coding agent such as Claude, Codex, or Cursor.
