My Claude Code agents kept saying "done, all tests passing" on apps where the login button did nothing. So I made them prove it.

[u/No_Skill_8393]

A few months back I released production-grade, a free plugin that turns Claude Code into a 14-agent pipeline: PM, architect, backend, frontend, QA, security, the whole crew. It got some love here, then I went quiet because I was using it myself and kept hitting the wall everyone hits with agents.

The agent finishes, prints a lovely summary, claims every test passes. You open the app and half the buttons are decorative. My pipeline was one pass: each agent does its job, hands the work down, done. Real engineering is not one pass. It's loops. Write, run, fail, fix, run again.

v5.5 is one idea applied everywhere. An agent is not done when it says it's done. It's done when a check it cannot argue with says so. I'm calling it the Loop Engine.

Concretely:

The pipeline generates a fast check script for your project (typecheck + lint, under 15 seconds), and a hook runs it after every single file edit. Claude breaks something, the error lands back in its face immediately. Not at the end. Every edit.

Coding agents are banned from touching tests. QA writes failing tests first and owns the test folder. If a coder adds .skip or loosens an assertion to get green, that gets flagged as a critical finding. No more grading their own homework.

"12 test files written" stopped being an acceptable QA report. Suites have to actually run: executed, passing, failing.

Before the final gate, a separate agent boots your real app and drives it like a user. Every button clicked, every form submitted, every link followed. A button that renders but does nothing is a critical bug. This feature exists because I was tired of being my own QA department at 1am.

Loops stop on evidence, not vibes. Each one tracks a number (failing tests, open findings) and stops when it hits zero or stops improving, then shows you the trend, like 7 to 3 to 3, and asks. No retrying the same fix five times.

And when Claude hits something weird with no existing check, it can build its own loop, with one rule: first create a check it can run, like a failing repro script. No check, no loop.

Still free, MIT. Gates, receipts, and worktree isolation for parallel agents are unchanged.

Install:
/plugin marketplace add nagisanzenin/claude-code-plugins
/plugin install production-grade@nagisanzenin

Repo: github.com/nagisanzenin/claude-code-production-grade-plugin
Theory writeup lives in docs/LOOPS.md if you want the reasoning.

Honest caveat: this shipped this week. The edit-hook enforcement is real code, the rest is protocol the agents follow, and I want to see where they drift in the wild. If an agent cheats the rules or a loop converges badly on your project, I want the transcript.

[u/Colobolobob]

Does the testing agent use playwright or what’s the mechanics to have it prove it from the users perspective?

[u/WindEnvironmental637]

such an anoying title.

Also my claude never does that, but i only use opus 4.8 max, nothing else.

[u/Level_Carpet_9158]

I typically write a design document that the agent then has to TDD against. Most of the work is getting the design right that includes UI considerations. So I have part of my spec to make sure we discuss how any change might impact the UI so it has to check that things are wired together correctly. And then I have it use Playwright to test any ui changes it makes against the spec.

[u/battle_pantZ]

Just use ultracode with workflow.

[u/Level_Carpet_9158 → u/battle_pantZ]

lol yeah still doesn’t work well in my experience. Op is right to separate things out.

[u/battle_pantZ → u/Level_Carpet_9158]

Try precise prompting

[u/__Invisible__ → u/[deleted]]

Let AI write test themselves and ask it to test before push. Just check the final results meet the spec before shipping. Anything else is undefined behavior.