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.
A fresh demo project, with real code and room to investigate.
Jason Arbon CEO, testers.ai
/carbon-demo
AIYukiLanding PagesAIRichardForms
You should be able to try a testing tool before giving it access to
the application your team depends on.
/carbon-demo creates a fresh disposable copy of a
bundled sample project, then starts CARBON First Look against that copy.
It is a practical way to see the workflow without sorting out access to
your own source first.
Watch what happens
with and without tests
The sample choices include different kinds of projects, such as a
website, a single-page app, and an API. Variants with a small existing
test suite let you see how CARBON treats prior automation. Variants
without tests show how it begins from the product and its code.
Those are different starting conditions. A useful demo should expose
the difference rather than stage the same perfect outcome every
time.
The copy gives the agent somewhere to inspect, plan, and execute
while keeping the original sample intact. Generated tests and findings
belong to that demo run. A failing seeded example is a demonstration
result, not independent proof of broad bug-finding performance.
Choose the
experience you want to understand
/carbon-demo list the available projects, then create a fresh simple website copy with existing tests and run First Look
Look at the plan before the results. Which behaviors did CARBON
choose? Did it inspect the existing tests? Can you distinguish source
observations from executed checks? Do the screenshots and reproduction
steps explain the findings?
You are evaluating the testing experience as much as the sample
application.
When that makes sense, move to a small real feature in your own
isolated project. The demo should make that next step obvious, not
require faith in a polished screenshot.
Install CARBON at testers.ai/carbon for a supported
coding agent such as Claude, Codex, or Cursor.