Most courses teach you the tool. Nobody puts you in the real problem — ambiguous requirements, a lead pushing back on your decisions, architecture calls you pay for later.
PlaywrightCucumberTypeScriptAPI + UICI/CDQuality Mindset
You've done the courses. You've got a repo full of scattered exercises. But you've never built a framework from zero for a project that actually has to work.
You've been testing manually for a while, and automation is the jump you need for your next role. What's missing isn't motivation — it's a demonstrable repo and the confidence to talk about it in an interview.
You can write tests that pass. What you haven't had is someone senior telling you why your approach is wrong — the kind of feedback that actually makes you better.
A full bootcamp costs thousands of dollars and takes months. You need something focused, short, and honest about what you'll actually be able to show afterward.
You work against a real e-commerce site — API and shopping cart included — at your own pace, not tied to calendar weeks.
Real architecture decisions, real review. No tutorial hand-holding.
Welcome to how the job actually works.
Now it's not just what the user sees.
Your suite has to run somewhere real — and someone has to understand the results.
Not just "does the test pass." Feedback on how you think about risk, coverage, and reporting — the way a senior tester would push you.
A reviewed repo you can actually walk an interviewer through — not a "ran it once on my machine" side project.
Shifting requirements, technical pushback — the dynamic of a real team, not a lecture.
Launch pricing, limited spots. Leave your email and be among the first to know when it opens.
We'll let you know the moment the first wave opens. Thanks for backing this from day one.
The opposite — you use AI throughout the program, the way real teams do today. What AI doesn't replace is the judgment to decide what to test, understanding business context, and having someone review your work. That's exactly what you practice here.
Yes — as long as you're already comfortable with manual testing. Once you're in, a quick diagnostic maps out where you're starting from technically, and the teaching thread adjusts to you: if there are fundamentals you're weaker on, you get specific takeaways to close the gap while the rest of the project moves forward.
No, and it's not trying to. It's shorter, cheaper, and more focused: one real project start to finish instead of months of general syllabus.
Still taking shape — and honestly, that's partly up to you. Let us know if you're interested in follow-ups, further info, continued learning, or side quests, and it'll shape what we build next.