A website update silently breaks the enquiry path

The problem

A layout or plugin update can leave the enquiry or booking path unusable without an obvious homepage failure.

Agent job

Create and run bounded browser tests for specified paths; capture failing steps and screenshots; produce a reproducible handoff without sending real enquiries.

Expected output

Three journey tests, test run evidence, regression report and maintenance notes.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Assessment

The agent can translate a plain-language enquiry journey into assertions and diagnose a changed page structure. Deterministic browser tests should run the stable checks thereafter. A manual smoke test is better for a tiny infrequently changed site or a CAPTCHA-protected third-party journey.

Setup requirements

Items

1. Authorized local/staging copy, dependency instructions and explicit hostname allowlist

2. Three documented journeys and expected end states

3. Playwright or equivalent approved test runner with screenshot storage

4. Synthetic accounts and blocked external mail/payment destinations

Inputs and access

1. Name

   Authorized local/staging site and repository

   Source or owner

   Prospective consenting customer or specified official publisher

   Sensitivity

   Use synthetic, public or appropriately deidentified material; confirm actual sensitivity before work

   Permission needed

   Owner authorizes scoped access and processing; verify rights and retention before receiving files

2. Name

   Three agreed customer journeys

   Source or owner

   Prospective consenting customer or specified official publisher

   Sensitivity

   Use synthetic, public or appropriately deidentified material; confirm actual sensitivity before work

   Permission needed

   Owner authorizes scoped access and processing; verify rights and retention before receiving files

3. Name

   Synthetic test accounts and safe form endpoints

   Source or owner

   Prospective consenting customer or specified official publisher

   Sensitivity

   Use synthetic, public or appropriately deidentified material; confirm actual sensitivity before work

   Permission needed

   Owner authorizes scoped access and processing; verify rights and retention before receiving files

Proposed steps

1. 1

   Agree three journeys, supported browsers and expected business outcomes; explicitly exclude live transactions.

   Expected output: Journey acceptance matrix

   Approval gate: Owner confirms environment and safe endpoints.

2. 2

   Build synthetic fixtures and verify that messages, payment calls and bookings cannot reach real recipients.

   Expected output: Safety preflight evidence

   Approval gate: Do not run until side effects are disabled or safely stubbed.

3. 3

   Write tests with outcome assertions and stable selectors for each agreed journey.

   Expected output: Reviewable test files

   Approval gate: Human checks assertions test the right behavior.

4. 4

   Seed representative local defects and verify each test fails for the intended reason.

   Expected output: Negative-control results

   Approval gate: Passing tests without negative controls do not establish coverage.

5. 5

   Run on the authorized staging version; manually reproduce failures and record screenshots/traces.

   Expected output: Reproducible defect report

   Approval gate: Do not classify flaky infrastructure as an application defect without evidence.

6. 6

   Deliver tests, run instructions and exclusions; quote repairs or recurring runs separately.

   Expected output: Handoff pack with baseline version

   Approval gate: Human approves any fix, deployment, paid runner or scheduled service.

Synthetic output illustration — not an executed result

Synthetic

Yes

Executed

No

Text

SYNTHETIC: Journey J02, mobile enquiry: FAIL at confirmation step. Button click occurred but expected “Enquiry received” message was absent. Screenshot: J02-step4.png; test: enquiry-mobile.spec.ts. This is an invented report, not a tested website.

Human approval boundaries

1. Site owner approves scope and test endpoints; human reviews tests and separately approves repairs, deployment or recurring schedules.

2. Human service provider reviews quality, scope and quoted fee; customer approves contract, delivery recipients and payment terms. Separately approve purchases, credentials, publication and external sends. No commitments or payments are made in this research.

Failure modes

1. CAPTCHA and external booking providers block automation

2. Tests can pass while testing the wrong outcome

3. Visual diffs can be noisy

4. Live forms can accidentally contact staff

Recovery and troubleshooting

Items

1. For flaky timing, inspect traces and assert the expected state; do not hide failure by increasing arbitrary waits.

2. For CAPTCHA or blocked external services, stop and substitute a documented manual checkpoint.

3. If a test accidentally contacts a live service, stop the run, report the exact side effect and correct isolation before any retry.

Unexecuted validation plan

Sample setup

Build a local fixture with a broken submit handler, wrong success text and mobile-hidden button.

Acceptance checks

1. Tests fail for each seeded defect and pass after repair

2. Assertions check outcome, not just clicks

3. No live payment, booking or external message

4. Human reproduces every reported defect

Stop conditions

1. Stop if data authority or rights are unclear.

2. Stop if critical seeded failures are missed; do not claim readiness.

3. Stop if manual correction time exceeds the pilot effort budget without customer approval.

Executed

No

Costs and effort — unknown or hypothetical

Status

unknown_or_estimate

Currency

CAD

Items

1. Agent subscription/API usage: not quoted; verify current plan and commercial data terms.

2. Human intake, rights review, QA and revisions: unknown until timed pilot.

3. Storage, hosting, integration and payment-processing costs: excluded unless separately agreed.

4. Customer acquisition and support time: not measured.

Caveat

No margin or income estimate. Price hypotheses are editorial offer tests, not observed market rates; taxes, scope and effort require a real quote.

Proposed service concept — earnings not verified or guaranteed

Buyer

Small web agency maintaining local-business sites

Deliverable

Three journey tests, test run evidence, regression report and maintenance notes.

Charging basis

Agency white-label regression pack, billed per site and agreed journey count.

Acquisition channel

Permission-based discovery with existing professional contacts, referrals or an opt-in sample page; none executed.

Assumptions

1. Customer has this unresolved problem and values a reviewed deliverable above existing built-in alternatives.

2. A consenting pilot confirms data access, achievable quality and economically tolerable review time.

3. Provider can deliver within a written scope and supports the result.

Revenue guarantee

No

Canadian adaptation — proposed

Proposed Canadian pilot: test the owner’s Canadian postal-code formats, province selector, local date/time display and CAD labels only where those features exist. Use synthetic form data and disable real messages. Verify English/French journeys separately if contracted; no national coverage or live deployment claim.

Limits

1. Original proposed plan; untested.

2. Problem and capability references are evidence of context only, not demonstrated end-to-end success, customer demand, willingness to pay or profitability.

3. Compatibility, workload, delivery effort and availability must be verified in a real authorized pilot.

4. Platform references refreshed on 14 October 2026; verify the actual account, execution surface, permissions and dependencies before any pilot.

Candidate platforms — compatibility untested

1. Name

   Codex

   Required capabilities

   1. File analysis, code execution and test/report artifact creation.

   Capability source urls

   1. https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/codex/cli

   2. https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/artifacts-viewer

   3. https://learn.chatgpt.com/docs/sandboxing

   Workflow compatibility

   Unknown; verify in the proposed first test.

   Historical candidate name

   Codex

   Selection basis

   Editorial candidate from general capabilities; exact end-to-end fit untested.