@gabriel1: every PR will obviously come with 100% coverage of AI app testing, that tries every button in the interface to make sur…
Summary
A tweet argues that AI app testing should be a first-class feature in coding apps, noting that many obvious problems could be caught if AI tried the app itself.
View Cached Full Text
Cached at: 06/24/26, 03:57 AM
every PR will obviously come with 100% coverage of AI app testing, that tries every button in the interface to make sure it works as expected
why are the coding apps not making AI testing first class feature, 80% of problems are obvious for AI if it tries the app itself
Similar Articles
@HowToAI_: Someone built a tool that lets Claude Code autonomously test your entire IOS app It navigate your entire app, opens eve…
A new tool built on Claude Code enables autonomous testing of iOS apps by navigating every screen, testing flows, reading debug logs, and producing structured bug reports from a single prompt.
@Suryanshti777: Every mobile team is about to realize how broken app testing has been this whole time. Someone connected Claude Code to…
A developer connected Claude Code to an iPhone simulator and prompted it to 'test everything,' resulting in autonomous navigation, bug detection, and structured reporting, showcasing a shift from traditional test scripts to AI-driven intent-based testing.
@garrytan: It's not that AI lets you write code faster. Plenty of people have noticed that. It's that AI lets you verify at a leve…
The post argues that the primary value of AI in programming is not just writing code faster, but enabling sustainable high-level verification and testing that was previously too costly in terms of human effort.
@svpino: If you are reviewing 100% of your AI-generated code by hand, you aren't moving fast enough. It's just impossible. Revie…
The tweet argues that manually reviewing all AI-generated code creates a bottleneck and links to a resource for a better approach.
Your AI Agent is one bad prompt away from ruining your brand (And why traditional QA is useless)
The article argues that traditional chatbot QA is broken because it only tests happy paths, and proposes using an AI-powered user simulator that attacks the bot with diverse personas and edge cases to find vulnerabilities before deployment.