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.
See the tests, evidence, and gaps without reconstructing a month of chat.
Jason Arbon CEO, testers.ai
/carbon-full-report
AIJasonAI Code ReviewAIMiaUsability
The security findings are in one report. The automation inventory is
in another. Somebody remembers a failed run, but not which build it
used.
This is how a team can accumulate testing activity without
accumulating a usable understanding of quality.
/carbon-full-report assembles the quality record CARBON
actually knows: test definitions, declared automation routes, durable
results, trends, findings, and retained decision context.
Make the architecture
visible
A test name is more useful when you can follow it to its purpose,
framework, execution route, and observed outcomes. A declared Playwright
case is not the same thing as a successful Playwright run. A CI
configuration does not prove the pipeline ran yesterday.
The full report keeps those distinctions visible in a searchable
inventory and evidence architecture. Trends come from recorded execution
history, not a guess based on report filenames or a paragraph saying
things improved.
Suppose an export test has failed on two builds. You should be able
to see the sequence, the associated finding, and whether a later retest
actually resolved it. An edited source file alone should not turn the
story green.
Read it as a map of
knowledge
/carbon-full-report show the current quality record, automation routes, unresolved findings, and recorded trends
“Full” means the complete available CARBON record, not every fact
about the product. External CI results and unavailable telemetry are not
silently invented to fill the layout.
This report gives a release discussion somewhere concrete to start.
It does not make the release decision for you.
The value is less time assembling slides and more time asking the
important question: what does this evidence really let us conclude?
Install CARBON at testers.ai/carbon for a supported
coding agent such as Claude, Codex, or Cursor.
