runtime-proof-kit uses Playwright, but it is not trying to replace Playwright Test.
Use Playwright Test when you need a full end-to-end test suite. Use runtime-proof-kit when you need a fast proof receipt that a web app starts, renders expected text, and leaves screenshots and logs for review.
| Need | Use |
|---|---|
| Full browser test suite | Playwright Test |
| Page objects, fixtures, retries, traces | Playwright Test |
| One command that starts an app and captures proof | runtime-proof-kit |
| PR-ready markdown summary | runtime-proof-kit |
| AI coding agent runtime verification | runtime-proof-kit |
| Browser screenshot plus console/network logs | runtime-proof-kit |
You should, when the behavior deserves durable test coverage.
But many coding-agent handoffs need something lighter:
- Start the local app.
- Wait for a URL.
- Assert visible text.
- Capture screenshot.
- Capture browser console and network logs.
- Write a markdown receipt a reviewer can scan.
That is what runtime-proof-kit optimizes for.
npx --yes runtime-proof-kit check \
--command "npm run dev" \
--url http://127.0.0.1:3000 \
--expect-text "Dashboard" \
--fail-on-console-errorOutput:
proof/
runtime-proof/
proof.json
summary.md
screenshot.png
console.ndjson
network.ndjson
runtime-proof-kit is best at the boundary between implementation and review:
- A coding agent claims a route works.
- A teammate wants proof before pulling the branch.
- CI should preserve evidence even when the smoke check fails.
- A small app needs confidence without a full E2E suite yet.
Playwright Test is best once you know the behavior is important enough to maintain as a real test suite.
A healthy setup can use both tools:
npm test
npx runtime-proof check --config runtime-proof.config.jsonTests protect expected behavior. Runtime proof makes the handoff inspectable.