cbrowser 19.3.7 → 19.3.9

package/dist/analysis/competitive-benchmark.js

@@ -1171,7 +1171,7 @@ export async function runCompetitiveBenchmark(options) {
         recommendations,
     };
 }
-import { runAgentReadyAudit } from "./agent-ready-audit.js";
+import { runAgentReadyAudit, summarizeIssueGroup } from "./agent-ready-audit.js";
 // ============================================================================
 // Error Categorization & Retry Logic (v18.15.0)
 // ============================================================================
@@ -1318,57 +1318,7 @@ export async function runAIReadinessBenchmark(options) {
                 };
             }
             const audit = retryResult.result;
-            // Determine strengths based on high category scores
-            const strengths = [];
-            if (audit.score.findability >= 80) {
-                strengths.push("Easy for agents to locate elements");
-            }
-            if (audit.score.stability >= 80) {
-                strengths.push("Stable selectors that won't break");
-            }
-            if (audit.score.agentPerceivability >= 80) {
-                strengths.push("Good ARIA labels for identification");
-            }
-            if (audit.score.semantics >= 80) {
-                strengths.push("Clear semantic HTML structure");
-            }
-            // Determine weaknesses based on low category scores
-            const weaknesses = [];
-            if (audit.score.findability < 60) {
-                weaknesses.push("Agents struggle to find elements");
-            }
-            if (audit.score.stability < 60) {
-                weaknesses.push("Dynamic selectors break automation");
-            }
-            if (audit.score.agentPerceivability < 60) {
-                weaknesses.push("Missing labels for element identification");
-            }
-            if (audit.score.semantics < 60) {
-                weaknesses.push("Poor semantic structure");
-            }
-            // Add issue-based weaknesses
-            const topThree = audit.issues.slice(0, 3);
-            const issueDescriptions = topThree.map((issue) => issue.description);
-            // Carried alongside the descriptions because reconciliation needs the
-            // CATEGORY, and mapping to description strings threw it away — which is
-            // why a strength and its contradiction could not be matched up.
-            const issueCategories = topThree.map((issue) => String(issue.category));
-            return {
-                url,
-                siteName,
-                grade: audit.grade,
-                score: audit.score.overall,
-                scoreBreakdown: audit.score,
-                topIssues: issueDescriptions,
-                topIssueCategories: issueCategories,
-                strengths: strengths.length > 0
-                    ? reconcileStrengths(strengths, issueCategories, audit.score)
-                    : ["No major strengths detected"],
-                weaknesses: weaknesses.length > 0 ? weaknesses : issueDescriptions,
-                duration: audit.duration,
-                auditStatus: "complete",
-                retryAttempts: retryResult.attempts,
-            };
+            return siteResultFromAudit(url, siteName, audit, retryResult.attempts);
         }));
         results.push(...batchResults);
     }
@@ -1403,10 +1353,59 @@ export async function runAIReadinessBenchmark(options) {
         recommendations,
     };
 }
+/**
+ * One completed audit as a benchmark site result. A pure function, so the
+ * fields the comparison and the competitor references read (checks,
+ * topIssueChecks, weaknessKeys) are testable without a browser.
+ * (report v8 B28, 2026-10-10)
+ */
+export function siteResultFromAudit(url, siteName, audit, retryAttempts) {
+    // Strengths and weaknesses from the axis scores, phrased per axis by
+    // AXIS_PHRASES so a phrase cannot drift from the axis it claims.
+    const strengths = AXES
+        .filter((axis) => audit.score[axis] >= 80)
+        .map((axis) => AXIS_PHRASES[axis].strength);
+    const weakAxes = AXES.filter((axis) => audit.score[axis] < 60);
+    // One entry per check, each summarized over all of its issues. Was
+    // audit.issues.slice(0, 3): ucdenver.edu's topIssues read "Hidden select
+    // with custom UI..." three times and nothing else. (report v8 B28,
+    // 2026-10-10)
+    const top = topIssueGroups(audit.issues, 3);
+    const issueDescriptions = top.map((g) => g.summary);
+    // Carried alongside the descriptions because reconciliation needs the
+    // CATEGORY, and mapping to description strings threw it away — which is
+    // why a strength and its contradiction could not be matched up.
+    const issueCategories = top.map((g) => g.category);
+    return {
+        url,
+        siteName,
+        grade: audit.grade,
+        score: audit.score.overall,
+        scoreBreakdown: audit.score,
+        topIssues: issueDescriptions,
+        topIssueCategories: issueCategories,
+        topIssueChecks: top.map((g) => g.check),
+        checks: siteChecks(audit.issues),
+        // Every issue's category, not the top three's: a top entry is now a
+        // whole check, so counting entries would undercount the elements.
+        strengths: strengths.length > 0
+            ? reconcileStrengths(strengths, audit.issues.map((i) => String(i.category)), audit.score)
+            : ["No major strengths detected"],
+        weaknesses: weakAxes.length > 0
+            ? weakAxes.map((axis) => AXIS_PHRASES[axis].weakness)
+            : issueDescriptions,
+        weaknessKeys: weakAxes.length > 0
+            ? weakAxes.map((axis) => ({ axis }))
+            : top.map((g) => ({ check: g.check })),
+        duration: audit.duration,
+        auditStatus: "complete",
+        retryAttempts,
+    };
+}
 /**
  * Generate comparative analysis between sites
  */
-function generateAIComparison(results) {
+export function generateAIComparison(results) {
     // Only compare successfully audited sites
     const successfulResults = results.filter((r) => r.score !== null && r.scoreBreakdown !== null);
     // Find best in each category (from successful audits only)
@@ -1415,16 +1414,13 @@ function generateAIComparison(results) {
     const byStability = [...successfulResults].sort((a, b) => b.scoreBreakdown.stability - a.scoreBreakdown.stability);
     const byAgentPerceivability = [...successfulResults].sort((a, b) => b.scoreBreakdown.agentPerceivability - a.scoreBreakdown.agentPerceivability);
     const bySemantics = [...successfulResults].sort((a, b) => b.scoreBreakdown.semantics - a.scoreBreakdown.semantics);
-    // Find common issues
-    const issueCounts = new Map();
-    for (const result of results) {
-        for (const issue of result.topIssues) {
-            issueCounts.set(issue, (issueCounts.get(issue) || 0) + 1);
-        }
-    }
-    const commonIssues = Array.from(issueCounts.entries())
-        .filter(([_, count]) => count >= Math.ceil(results.length / 2))
-        .map(([issue]) => issue);
+    // A check is common when at least two audited sites, and at least half of
+    // them, fail it. The old count keyed on description text from each site's top
+    // three, counted repeats within one site, and used ceil(n/2), which is 1 for
+    // two sites. Measured 2026-10-10 on cbrowser.ai vs ucdenver.edu: all three
+    // "common" issues came from cbrowser.ai alone, two of them the same check
+    // ("score: 0/10" and "score: 2/10"). (report v8 B28)
+    const commonIssues = commonChecks(successfulResults);
     // Build site advantages
     const siteAdvantages = {};
     for (const result of results) {
@@ -1434,16 +1430,16 @@ function generateAIComparison(results) {
             advantages.push("Best overall AI readiness");
         }
         if (result.siteName === byFindability[0]?.siteName && result.siteName !== byScore[0]?.siteName) {
-            advantages.push("Best element findability");
+            advantages.push(AXIS_PHRASES.findability.best);
         }
         if (result.siteName === byStability[0]?.siteName && result.siteName !== byScore[0]?.siteName) {
-            advantages.push("Most stable selectors");
+            advantages.push(AXIS_PHRASES.stability.best);
         }
         if (result.siteName === byAgentPerceivability[0]?.siteName && result.siteName !== byScore[0]?.siteName) {
-            advantages.push("Best ARIA/accessibility labels");
+            advantages.push(AXIS_PHRASES.agentPerceivability.best);
         }
         if (result.siteName === bySemantics[0]?.siteName && result.siteName !== byScore[0]?.siteName) {
-            advantages.push("Best semantic structure");
+            advantages.push(AXIS_PHRASES.semantics.best);
         }
         // Add strength-based advantages
         advantages.push(...result.strengths.filter(s => s !== "No major strengths detected"));
@@ -1459,39 +1455,75 @@ function generateAIComparison(results) {
         siteAdvantages,
     };
 }
+/** The order strengths, weaknesses and superlatives are listed in. */
+const AXES = ["findability", "stability", "agentPerceivability", "semantics"];
 /**
- * Which scoring axis a strength phrase is a claim about.
+ * What each scoring axis is called in benchmark output, keyed by the axis.
+ *
+ * Every phrase is generated from this table and mapped back through its
+ * inverses below, so renaming one cannot leave reconciliation or deduplication
+ * matching the old wording. A new strength gets its axis by construction; it
+ * used to need a hand-kept entry, and without one it was silently exempt from
+ * reconciliation, which is how a claim and its contradiction shipped side by
+ * side.
  *
- * The phrases are generated from axis thresholds a few lines below, so this map
- * is their inverse. Kept beside them deliberately: a new strength added without
- * an entry here is silently exempt from reconciliation, which is how a claim and
- * its contradiction came to ship side by side.
+ * The stability phrases said "Stable selectors that won't break", "Dynamic
+ * selectors break automation" and "Most stable selectors". Selector stability
+ * is scored under FINDABILITY (findability-score-check). The stability axis is
+ * scored from hidden native controls, sticky elements that intercept clicks,
+ * session state, infinite scroll and loading indicators, so a page could be
+ * praised for stable selectors beside "N elements lack stable selectors".
+ * (report v8 B28, 2026-10-10)
  */
-const STRENGTH_AXIS = {
-    "Easy for agents to locate elements": "findability",
-    "Stable selectors that won't break": "stability",
-    "Good ARIA labels for identification": "agentPerceivability",
-    "Clear semantic HTML structure": "semantics",
+const AXIS_PHRASES = {
+    findability: {
+        strength: "Easy for agents to locate elements",
+        weakness: "Agents struggle to find elements",
+        best: "Best element findability",
+    },
+    stability: {
+        strength: "Few hidden controls, click-blocking overlays or loading hazards",
+        weakness: "Hidden controls, click-blocking overlays or dynamic loading disrupt agents",
+        best: "Most stable interactions",
+    },
+    agentPerceivability: {
+        strength: "Good ARIA labels for identification",
+        weakness: "Missing labels for element identification",
+        best: "Best ARIA/accessibility labels",
+    },
+    semantics: {
+        strength: "Clear semantic HTML structure",
+        weakness: "Poor semantic structure",
+        best: "Best semantic structure",
+    },
 };
+const phraseToAxis = (field) => Object.fromEntries(AXES.map((axis) => [AXIS_PHRASES[axis][field], axis]));
+/** Which scoring axis a strength phrase is a claim about. */
+const STRENGTH_AXIS = phraseToAxis("strength");
 /** Superlatives and plain strengths make the same claim at different scopes. */
-const ADVANTAGE_AXIS = {
-    "Best element findability": "findability",
-    "Most stable selectors": "stability",
-    "Best ARIA/accessibility labels": "agentPerceivability",
-    "Best semantic structure": "semantics",
-};
+const ADVANTAGE_AXIS = phraseToAxis("best");
+/** An issue category as an axis. The deprecated "accessibility" is agentPerceivability. */
+function categoryAxis(category) {
+    return category === "accessibility" ? "agentPerceivability" : category;
+}
 /**
- * Qualify a strength that the site's own top issues contradict.
+ * Qualify a strength that the site's own issues contradict.
  *
  * `/pricing` shipped `strengths: ["Stable selectors that won't break"]` beside
  * `topIssues: ["Element lacks stable selectors (score: 0/10)"]`. Both are
  * arithmetically correct -- the first is an AXIS score at 92, the second is an
  * ELEMENT scoring 0 -- and they are not publishable together unreconciled.
+ * (The strength's wording was also wrong: that axis does not score selectors.
+ * Renamed in report v8 B28, 2026-10-10; see AXIS_PHRASES.)
  *
  * Qualified rather than suppressed. Stability 92 is real and useful; deleting
  * the strength would lose it to hide an inconsistency that is actually
  * information. The exception count is what a reader needs, and it is what the
  * old output withheld.
+ *
+ * `issueCategories` is one entry per issue. The benchmark passes every issue's
+ * category; it passed the top three's, which stopped being a count of elements
+ * once a top entry became a whole check.
  */
 export function reconcileStrengths(strengths, issueCategories, breakdown) {
     return strengths.map((strength) => {
@@ -1500,8 +1532,7 @@ export function reconcileStrengths(strengths, issueCategories, breakdown) {
             return strength;
         // The deprecated "accessibility" category is out of the type but can still
         // arrive at runtime from an older caller across a JSON boundary.
-        const exceptions = issueCategories.filter((c) => c === axis
-            || (axis === "agentPerceivability" && c === "accessibility")).length;
+        const exceptions = issueCategories.filter((c) => categoryAxis(c) === axis).length;
         if (exceptions === 0)
             return strength;
         const score = breakdown[axis];
@@ -1510,8 +1541,8 @@ export function reconcileStrengths(strengths, issueCategories, breakdown) {
 }
 /**
  * Drop a plain strength when the superlative for the same axis is already
- * present. "Most stable selectors" and "Stable selectors that won't break" are
- * one claim written twice, and the list shipped both.
+ * present. "Most stable interactions" and the stability strength are one claim
+ * written twice, and the list shipped both.
  */
 export function dedupeAdvantagesByAxis(advantages) {
     const superlativeAxes = new Set(advantages.map((a) => ADVANTAGE_AXIS[a]).filter(Boolean));
@@ -1528,27 +1559,109 @@ export function dedupeAdvantagesByAxis(advantages) {
         return true;
     });
 }
+/** A page's issues grouped by check (`detectionMethod`), in first-seen order. */
+function groupByCheck(issues) {
+    const groups = new Map();
+    for (const issue of issues) {
+        let group = groups.get(issue.detectionMethod);
+        if (!group) {
+            group = { check: issue.detectionMethod, category: String(issue.category), issues: [] };
+            groups.set(issue.detectionMethod, group);
+        }
+        group.issues.push(issue);
+    }
+    return [...groups.values()];
+}
+/** Every check that fired on a page, once each, with every issue's description. */
+export function siteChecks(issues) {
+    return groupByCheck(issues).map((g) => ({
+        id: g.check,
+        category: g.category,
+        descriptions: g.issues.map((i) => i.description),
+    }));
+}
 /**
- * Everything a site is known to be bad at.
+ * A page's top issues: one entry per check, summarized over all of that
+ * check's issues, worst severity first (ties keep detection order).
  *
- * `weaknesses` alone is not that set. It is `weaknesses.length > 0 ? weaknesses
- * : issueDescriptions` -- so a site with a low AXIS score gets only its axis
- * weaknesses, and its element-level issues never appear there at all. That is
- * the gap the reference check fell through: cbrowser.ai/pricing carried a sticky
- * -element issue in `topIssues` and not in `weaknesses`, so a check reading only
- * `weaknesses` concluded it was clean and recommended it as the example to
- * follow -- for the identical issue.
+ * Was `audit.issues.slice(0, 3)` -- raw issues in detection order, so one check
+ * could fill all three slots (ucdenver.edu: "Hidden select with custom UI..."
+ * x3, measured 2026-10-10), and severity played no part in which three showed.
+ * (report v8 B28)
  */
-function issueSurface(r) {
-    return new Set([...(r.weaknesses ?? []), ...(r.topIssues ?? [])]);
+export function topIssueGroups(issues, limit = 3) {
+    const rank = (sev) => ({ critical: 0, high: 1, medium: 2, low: 3 }[String(sev).toLowerCase()] ?? 4);
+    return groupByCheck(issues)
+        .map((g, i) => ({ g, i, worst: Math.min(...g.issues.map((x) => rank(x.severity))) }))
+        .sort((a, b) => a.worst - b.worst || a.i - b.i)
+        .slice(0, limit)
+        .map(({ g }) => ({ check: g.check, category: g.category, summary: summarizeIssueGroup(g.issues) }));
+}
+/**
+ * Checks shared by at least two audited sites and at least half of them, most
+ * widely shared first, one line each: "k of n sites: <summary>".
+ *
+ * Keyed on the check id across every issue each site has, counted once per
+ * site. The summary covers every matching issue on every sharing site, so it
+ * is true of all of them (summarizeIssueGroup's contract).
+ */
+export function commonChecks(audited) {
+    const n = audited.length;
+    const threshold = Math.max(2, Math.ceil(n / 2));
+    const byCheck = new Map();
+    for (const site of audited) {
+        const counted = new Set();
+        for (const check of site.checks ?? []) {
+            let entry = byCheck.get(check.id);
+            if (!entry) {
+                entry = { sites: 0, issues: [] };
+                byCheck.set(check.id, entry);
+            }
+            if (!counted.has(check.id)) {
+                counted.add(check.id);
+                entry.sites++;
+            }
+            entry.issues.push(...check.descriptions.map((description) => ({ description, detectionMethod: check.id })));
+        }
+    }
+    // Map iteration is first-seen order, and sort is stable, so ties keep it.
+    return [...byCheck.values()]
+        .filter((e) => e.sites >= threshold)
+        .sort((a, b) => b.sites - a.sites)
+        .map((e) => `${e.sites} of ${n} sites: ${summarizeIssueGroup(e.issues)}`);
+}
+/**
+ * Whether a candidate site has the issue a weakness is about.
+ *
+ * Matched on keys. The old check compared description strings, which carry
+ * per-element figures ("score: 0/10" vs "score: 2/10", "1280x57px"), so the
+ * same check on a candidate read as a different issue, and an axis weakness
+ * matched only a candidate printing the same weakness line, never one with
+ * issues on that axis: ucdenver.edu (stability under 60) was told cbrowser.ai
+ * "does not have this issue" while cbrowser.ai had a stability-axis
+ * sticky-element issue. Measured 2026-10-10. (report v8 B28)
+ *
+ * A candidate whose checks are unknown is treated as having it: no reference
+ * beats a wrong one.
+ */
+function hasIssue(candidate, key) {
+    if (!candidate.checks)
+        return true;
+    if ("check" in key)
+        return candidate.checks.some((c) => c.id === key.check);
+    if (candidate.checks.some((c) => categoryAxis(c.category) === key.axis))
+        return true;
+    const score = candidate.scoreBreakdown?.[key.axis];
+    return score === undefined || score < 60;
 }
 /**
  * A site worth holding up as an example for THIS issue, or nothing.
  *
  * Three conditions, and the tool previously enforced none of them:
  *
- *  1. It must not share the issue. Checked against the full issue surface above,
- *     not just `weaknesses`.
+ *  1. It must not share the issue: not the same check, or for an axis
+ *     weakness, no issue on that axis and the axis not itself under 60. See
+ *     hasIssue above.
  *  2. It must actually score BETTER than the site being advised. The old code
  *     took the first array match, so cbrowser.ai/pricing (83) was told that
  *     cbrowser.ai/docs/home (80) "handles this better" -- advice to copy a page
@@ -1561,13 +1674,13 @@ function issueSurface(r) {
  * the failure most likely to be screenshotted. No reference is strictly better
  * than a wrong one.
  */
-export function pickBetterReference(candidates, subject, issue) {
+export function pickBetterReference(candidates, subject, key) {
     if (subject.score === null)
         return undefined;
     return candidates
         .filter((r) => r.siteName !== subject.siteName)
         .filter((r) => r.score !== null && r.score > subject.score)
-        .filter((r) => !issueSurface(r).has(issue))
+        .filter((r) => !hasIssue(r, key))
         .sort((a, b) => (b.score ?? 0) - (a.score ?? 0))[0];
 }
 /**
@@ -1598,9 +1711,13 @@ function generateAIRecommendations(results, ranking) {
         if (result.siteName === bestSite?.site && successfulRankings.length > 1) {
             continue;
         }
-        // Add weakness-based recommendations
-        for (const weakness of result.weaknesses) {
-            const betterSite = pickBetterReference(successfulResults, { siteName: result.siteName, score: result.score }, weakness);
+        // Add weakness-based recommendations. The reference is matched on the
+        // weakness's key, not its text; a weakness with no key gets no reference.
+        for (const [i, weakness] of result.weaknesses.entries()) {
+            const key = result.weaknessKeys?.[i];
+            const betterSite = key
+                ? pickBetterReference(successfulResults, { siteName: result.siteName, score: result.score }, key)
+                : undefined;
             recommendations.push({
                 site: result.siteName,
                 priority: priority++,
@@ -1623,7 +1740,10 @@ function generateAIRecommendations(results, ranking) {
                 {
                     name: "stability",
                     score: result.scoreBreakdown.stability,
-                    fix: "Use data-testid attributes and semantic selectors",
+                    // Was "Use data-testid attributes and semantic selectors", a
+                    // findability fix: this axis scores hidden controls, sticky overlays
+                    // and dynamic loading. (report v8 B28, 2026-10-10)
+                    fix: "Expose native form controls, keep sticky elements off click targets, and mark loading with aria-busy",
                 },
                 {
                     name: "agentPerceivability",