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.
Review the evidence and interactions the implementation may have missed.
Jason Arbon CEO, testers.ai
/carbon-review
AIJasonAI Code ReviewAIMarcusOWASP
The agent that wrote the feature can explain why it makes sense. That
explanation may be right. It may also faithfully repeat the assumption
that caused the bug.
/carbon-review is a separate challenge of AI-generated
code, behavior changes, evaluation suites, or release evidence.
Look beyond the edited line
A change to document permissions may be correct in the main handler
while an export route keeps the old behavior. A new validation rule may
protect the form but reject legitimate values in an API client. A test
may pass because its fixture never reaches the changed branch.
The review should connect the diff to relevant dependencies,
contracts, user outcomes, and measurements. It asks what the proposed
evidence does not establish, not merely whether the implementation looks
tidy.
When the scope permits verification, a suspected issue can lead to a
focused check. Source inspection and reproduced behavior remain distinct
evidence states.
Ask for an independent
challenge
/carbon-review challenge this permission change and its tests; inspect adjacent read/export paths and distinguish proven defects from hypotheses
The report should explain the failure mechanism, supporting evidence,
likely consequence, and what would confirm or resolve the concern.
Review does not silently authorize product edits.
A separate pass can reduce shared blind spots, but it is not
automatically statistically independent simply because it has a
different label. The sources and assumptions still matter.
The goal is not to make the builder defend every line. It is to find
the important thing the builder had no reason to question.
Install CARBON at testers.ai/carbon for a supported
coding agent such as Claude, Codex, or Cursor.
