Won't AI-generated tests be flaky themselves?

They will be if the prompt is 'generate tests' with no further engineering. Our pattern wraps the generation with a flake-rate gate: a new test has to pass 10 consecutive CI runs before it's allowed to gate merges. Tests that don't pass that bar are quarantined automatically - they don't 'flake' the team into ignoring red builds.

What about Cypress vs. Playwright?

Default is Playwright - better cross-browser, faster, better debugging tools, and most AI test generation tools support it natively. We'll work with Cypress if your team already has a deep investment, but most net-new projects we start go to Playwright.

Can you integrate with our CI?

Yes - GitHub Actions, CircleCI, Buildkite, GitLab CI, Jenkins. We design CI as a first-class deliverable: parallelization, sharding, retry policies, and a sane failure-summary view that fits in a Slack message.

What happens after the engagement?

We hand over a Test Owner playbook covering when to delete tests, when to fix them, and when to write new ones. The biggest mistake we see is treating tests as 'write once' - they need ownership, just like product code. We'll set the role up, but someone on your side has to wear it.

AI Test Automation

AI Test Automation - Self-Healing E2E Coverage

Most E2E test suites cost more than they save. We use AI to generate, maintain, and self-heal tests - visual regression that ignores noise, selectors that adapt to UI changes, and a flake rate you can actually live with.

Where AI fits in your test pyramid

What kind of test do you need?

If logic / function correctness: Unit tests (no AI)
Fast, cheap, deterministic. AI is overkill here - write them by hand or generate from types.
If real user journeys & flows: AI-generated E2E + self-healing
Selectors adapt to UI changes, AI generates from real user sessions. Biggest ROI here.
If visual / pixel correctness: AI-assisted visual regression
AI ignores noise (anti-alias, animation), flags real diffs. Cuts noise 90%+ vs naive pixel diff.

We're not anti-AI for tests - we're against AI tests that replace tests that already work.

What you get

Test-coverage audit: which tests catch real bugs, which only catch yesterday's tests

AI-generated E2E and integration tests from your real user journeys (Playwright, Cypress)

Self-healing selectors that adapt to UI changes - no more 1,000 broken tests after a Tailwind upgrade

Visual regression that uses AI to ignore acceptable diffs (anti-aliasing, animation frames) and flag real ones

Performance regression budget per page (Web Vitals) wired into CI

Flaky-test dashboard with quarantine workflow - bad tests are deleted, not 'flaky-marked' forever

Test pyramid you can defend: how much unit / integration / E2E and why

When it fits

The current test suite is flaky enough that PRs are merged with red CI 'because it's always red'
Releases slow because manual QA is the bottleneck
The product changes weekly and tests can't keep up - fewer tests would be better than the current ones
There's an engineering lead willing to enforce 'no merge with broken tests' once the suite is reliable

When it doesn't

There are zero tests and no test culture - start with unit tests and a basic CI, not AI automation
The product surface is unstable and changes daily by design - tests will lose to product velocity
Manual QA is genuinely cheaper at your scale (small product, tiny team)

Process

Week 1: audit and quarantine - what to keep, what to delete, what to rewrite. Weeks 2–4: replace top 20% of flaky tests with self-healing E2E covering the same journeys. Weeks 5–6: AI-generated tests for uncovered critical paths + visual regression. Week 7: handover including a Test Owner playbook (the role most teams skip).

Full delivery process

Pricing

Fixed-price ($40–120k) for a focused 6–8 week sprint. Quarterly retainer for ongoing test ownership. Test infrastructure (Playwright Cloud, Chromatic, etc.) is billed at cost.

See engagement models

Case studies

E-Commerce & Retail

Multi-Vendor E-Commerce Platform

Scalable marketplace processing $10M+ monthly with AI recommendations and real-time inventory management.

Human Resources & Recruitment

AI-Powered Applicant Tracking System

Comprehensive ATS solution with AI-driven candidate matching, automated resume parsing, and real-time recruiter-candidate communication serving 10K+ monthly candidates.

FAQ

Won't AI-generated tests be flaky themselves?: They will be if the prompt is 'generate tests' with no further engineering. Our pattern wraps the generation with a flake-rate gate: a new test has to pass 10 consecutive CI runs before it's allowed to gate merges. Tests that don't pass that bar are quarantined automatically - they don't 'flake' the team into ignoring red builds.
What about Cypress vs. Playwright?: Default is Playwright - better cross-browser, faster, better debugging tools, and most AI test generation tools support it natively. We'll work with Cypress if your team already has a deep investment, but most net-new projects we start go to Playwright.
Can you integrate with our CI?: Yes - GitHub Actions, CircleCI, Buildkite, GitLab CI, Jenkins. We design CI as a first-class deliverable: parallelization, sharding, retry policies, and a sane failure-summary view that fits in a Slack message.
What happens after the engagement?: We hand over a Test Owner playbook covering when to delete tests, when to fix them, and when to write new ones. The biggest mistake we see is treating tests as 'write once' - they need ownership, just like product code. We'll set the role up, but someone on your side has to wear it.

Hands on a mechanical keyboard in front of a laptop and monitor with code — A normal Tuesday on one of our desks.

Who builds it

Our own team, working from our office in East Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. The engineers on your scoping call are the ones who build it.

Meet the team

Ready to talk ai test automation?

30-minute scoping call. No obligation, no hard sell.