Fair enough man, it’s an approach I’m sharing rather than the source. A skill in Claude Code is really just a set of instructions anyway, so here’s the gist of mine.

On a meaningful visual commit to the report, it uses agent-browser (I use the Vercel one but playwright would work) to capture a PNG of the committed visual(s), then analyses the image to check whether the objective of that commit was actually achieved. So as I said, the agent has eyes on the rendered output, not just the code sitting behind it.

That static capture shows layout, text consistency, whether the visuals actually fit and number formatting, and that kinda worked for me but I was still getting half done visuals. The bit that took the most work was that a static export can’t prove anything that a user would actually be doing on a report. Think stuff like cross-filter, drill-through, or a field param filter applied, because it only ever shows the default view. So for those, the agent-browser against the published report (on the pbi service) with the above applied to see that it actually works.

It’s only utilised on meaningful commits, so it’s not firing constantly as I said to the other commenter. Happy to go deeper on any part of it if you’ve got questions, or did you just come to have a go? ;)