AI QA testing that runs your app in a real browser
AI QA testing is when an agent decides what to check on your site, drives a real Chromium browser like a user would, and reports back what broke with evidence. AuditWard does this from one URL and runs a security scan in the same pass. No scripts to write, no flaky selectors to maintain.
One audit, browser QA and a security scan.
Give AuditWard a URL and a few words about what the app does. An LLM Planner turns that into a test checklist. An Explorer agent works through the checklist in a real Chromium browser, clicking, typing, and navigating like a person. Security tooling probes the same target. An Analyst reads the evidence and writes up findings.
The result is a single run that covers both functional QA and security, instead of two separate tools and two reports. Findings come back triaged, confidence-scored, and tagged to compliance frameworks, each with annotated screenshots and a pentest-style PDF. You can run it from the dashboard or call it from a coding agent over MCP.
Looking for the security half of the story? See the website security scan pillar. To wire AuditWard into your coding agent, start with the MCP server.
Go deeper on AI QA testing.
These pages cover how agentic QA works, how AuditWard fits a coding-agent workflow, how it stacks up against other QA tools, and what to do when you ship code that an AI wrote. Pick the one that matches what you are trying to decide.
What is agentic QA?
The plain definition: an agent that plans and runs its own tests in a browser instead of replaying a fixed script.
QA from your coding agent
The MCP server and its six tools, so Claude Code or any MCP client can start a scan and read the findings.
Audit AI-generated code
A workflow for checking code your agent wrote before it ships, against a live deploy, in one call.
Verify your coding agent
Use AuditWard as a second pair of eyes on whatever your coding agent just built and deployed.
AuditWard vs QA.tech
A fair, fit-focused comparison of two agentic QA approaches, with the security scan as a difference.
AuditWard vs Octomind
How AuditWard's combined QA and security audit lines up against Octomind's test generation.
AuditWard vs Mabl
Where each tool fits between low-maintenance audits and a managed test-automation suite.
Four roles, one pass over your app.
AuditWard splits the audit across four roles. A Planner decides what to test, an Explorer drives the browser, security tools probe the target, and an Analyst writes the findings. Each stage hands evidence to the next, so the output is judgment, not a raw log dump.
Build the checklist
An LLM reads your URL and the instructions you give it, then writes a test checklist for the app. Sign-up flows, forms, navigation, checkout, whatever the page actually offers. You can steer it with a sentence or two.
Run it in real Chromium
The Explorer agent works through the checklist in a real Chromium browser. It clicks, fills fields, follows links, and reacts to what loads. When it hits a login wall, it pauses and asks you for credentials, then resumes.
Probe the target
Real pentest tooling runs against the same site: curl, testssl.sh, Nuclei, Nmap, Gobuster, nslookup, and WhatWeb. They check TLS, headers, exposed paths, open services, and known issues while the browser work happens.
Triage the evidence
An Analyst turns browser sessions and tool output into findings. Each one gets a severity, a confidence score, a compliance tag, a remediation note, and the screenshots that prove it. False positives get filtered out here.
Every finding ships with proof.
A finding you cannot verify is just noise. AuditWard attaches the evidence to each one: the annotated screenshot from the browser session, the tool output behind a security flag, the steps that reproduce it. You can hand the PDF to a developer or an auditor and they can follow it.
Annotated screenshots
The Explorer captures the screen at each step. Findings link to the exact frame, marked up to show what the agent saw and where the problem is.
Pentest-style PDF
A formatted report lists findings by severity with summary, impact, and remediation, plus the tooling used. It reads like a report a security firm would send.
Per-finding compliance tags
Each finding is tagged to the frameworks it touches, so you can pull the ones that matter for a given audit. Tagging is per finding, not a report-level pass or fail.
| Framework | What the tag tells you |
|---|---|
| PCI DSS 4.0 | The finding maps to a payment-security control, useful when you handle card data. |
| SOC 2 | Evidence toward a trust-services criterion you can show an auditor. |
| GDPR | A data-protection angle, often around how personal data is exposed or transmitted. |
| OWASP Top 10 | The web-app risk category the finding falls under, in language developers know. |
| HIPAA | A safeguard relevant when the app handles protected health information. |
| ISO 27001 | A control from the standard, for teams running an information-security program. |
AuditWard helps you find and evidence issues mapped to these frameworks. It does not make you compliant and is not a certification. See the compliance overview for how the tags support audit work.
Built for teams shipping fast.
AuditWard fits anyone who ships web apps without a dedicated QA or security team to check them. If you push changes often and want a real read on what broke and what is exposed, this gives you both from one URL.
Developers using coding agents
You let an AI write features and want to check the deployed result. Call AuditWard over MCP from the same agent and read the findings without leaving your editor.
Small teams without QA staff
No one is paid to test the app before it ships. Run an audit from the dashboard on each release and get a triaged list with screenshots you can act on.
Founders shipping a first version
You built a product with no-code or AI tools and want an honest look before launch. One scan covers whether the flows work and where the obvious security gaps are.
Teams gathering audit evidence
You are working toward SOC 2 or another framework and need documented findings. The per-finding tags and PDF give you something concrete to file, alongside a manual review.
Common questions.
What is AI QA testing?
It is QA where an agent decides what to check, runs the app in a real browser like a user would, and reports what failed with evidence. You do not write or maintain test scripts. AuditWard plans the checklist from a URL and a short instruction, then runs it.
How is agentic QA different from a recorded test suite?
A recorded suite replays fixed steps and breaks when the UI changes. An agentic QA run plans its own steps each time and adapts to what the page actually shows, so it does not depend on brittle selectors that need constant upkeep.
Does AuditWard test in a real browser or simulate one?
It uses a real Chromium browser. The Explorer agent clicks, types, and navigates the live page, and it captures screenshots at each step so every finding links to what was actually on screen.
Can it test pages behind a login?
Yes, on Starter and above. When a scan reaches a login wall it pauses and asks you structured questions. You answer in the dashboard or with the qa_provide_context MCP tool, and the scan resumes. Your answers are KMS-encrypted before storage.
Is this a substitute for a penetration test?
No. AuditWard runs real security tooling and reports findings, but it does not replace a manual penetration test. It complements one by catching issues continuously and giving you evidence to act on between manual engagements.
Can I run it from my coding agent?
Yes. AuditWard ships an MCP server with six tools, so Claude Code or any MCP client can start a scan, poll status, answer credential questions, and pull the PDF report without leaving the agent. MCP is on Starter and above.
Run your first audit.
The Basic plan is free and gives you one combined QA and security scan a month, with the first three findings per scan visible. Point it at a URL you are authorized to test and see what comes back. Upgrade to Starter for MCP access and scans behind a login.