Zerocheck is your AI verification layer. It navigates your app like a real user, with plain-English tests that live in your repo and rerun on every PR against staging.
20 minute walkthrough on your app.
For teams shipping with
Teams ship features in hours with Claude Code, Codex, Cursor — but can’t manually test every PR. Integration tests break with every redesign, and bugs reach customers weeks before anyone notices.
of CI failures are flaky tests, not real bugs.
Google Testing Blog
of teams spend 20+ hours weekly maintaining tests.
State of Testing Report
Features
Push a PR. Zerocheck reads the diff, traces which flows your changes touch, and writes the tests for them.
See change-aware testing →Every test records the browser. You see what happened at each step, with screenshots, step trace, and repro notes posted on the PR.
See SOC 2 evidence automation →Selector-based tests break when you change the UI. Zerocheck interacts visually, using accessibility trees instead of DOM paths.
See zero-to-CI setup →Payment webhook failed
Stripe returned 502 on /webhooks/checkout. Last success: 42m ago.
Zerocheck reruns these flows on a schedule. If checkout breaks due to a completely unrelated change, you find out before you lose customers.
See production monitoring →How it works
Connect GitHub and point Zerocheck at staging. Runs as a GitHub check — no CI pipeline changes.
Zerocheck generates a new test suite by scanning your app. Review and edit it, or add your own.
Zerocheck traces what your changes affect, including downstream dependencies, generates tests for those flows, and runs the entire suite. Recording, screenshots, and step trace added to every PR as a comment.
After merge, your flows keep running against production on a schedule.

I spent years watching the same pattern repeat across teams: add Playwright tests → a redesign breaks half of them → nobody fixes the selectors → tests get commented out → production breaks six weeks later. The framework wasn’t the problem. The selector-based interaction model was.
Zerocheck uses the browser’s accessibility tree instead of CSS paths — the same thing a real user (or a screen reader) sees. Tests describe intent, not implementation, so they survive UI refactors and redesigns. Everything is written in plain English and lives in your repo as version-controlled text. Every run produces a recording, screenshots, and a step trace that get posted back to the PR.
If that matches something you’re working on, book a demo or reach out directly. I run every first session personally.
Unit tests catch code issues. They miss a broken checkout, or a CSS change that hides the buy button. That manual click-through is the test nobody wrote.
Wiring it into CI, writing selectors, and fixing them when the UI changes costs 20+ hours a week.
You get a recording, screenshots, and step trace posted on the PR while you’re still in the code. Not a checkmark. What actually happened. When something fails, you see the recording of what went wrong and the exact step that broke.
Playwright MCP gives your coding agent a browser. You still write the test logic, handle assertions, and wire it into CI yourself. Zerocheck reads your diff, generates tests, runs them, and posts results with a recording. MCP is a tool. Zerocheck is a workflow.
Detailed comparisons
Fifteen minutes. One of your real PRs. You watch the browser navigate your app and see exactly what passed and what broke. If it doesn’t catch something useful, you’ve lost nothing.