From a failed journey
to a clear next step.

See how Diglet investigates an application failure, captures the evidence, and prepares the next action for your team.

Animated example of Diglet exploring a checkout and finding issues.

Start with a critical workflow.

Choose the application journey, expected outcome, and business consequence to investigate. Agree on scope and authorised test access.

Check what actually happens.

Follow the journey, compare the result with the expected behaviour, and capture where it breaks down.

Give your team a clear next step.

Keep the evidence, reproduction steps, and resolution checks together. Send the finding to your coding agent when a code change is needed.

Bugs & regressions Checkout stalls without a payment response

Sample reportBugs & regressions

Checkout stalls without a payment response

Selecting Pay leaves the customer on checkout, with no progress, confirmation, or error.

DigletYour team

Give your team a clear next step.

Evidence, reproduction steps, and resolution checks.

For code changes, Diglet can hand the finding to your coding agent.

Claude Code
ChatGPT / Codex
Cursor
GitHub Copilot

Book a demo

Recommended action

Investigate the stalled payment and restore a clear response.

EvidenceWhat failed and what Diglet observed
ReproductionThe steps to make it happen again
Resolution checksThe expected outcome to verify

View the evidence

Evidence

In this sample, the $129 checkout remains unchanged after Pay is selected. The screen gives no indication whether payment started or failed.

Workspace → Checkout → Pay

Reproduce it

Add the $129 headphones to the cart.
Continue to checkout and select a test payment method.
Select Pay. Observe that the checkout shows no response.

Expected outcome

Payment submission shows a clear pending state, then a confirmation or an actionable error. A repeated click must not create a duplicate payment.

Resolution checks

A successful test payment reaches confirmation.
A failed test payment shows an error and allows a safe retry.
Repeated clicks during submission do not create duplicate payments.

Copy for your coding agent

Coding agent prompt

The finding, evidence, and resolution checks, ready to paste into your workflow.

Investigate and fix: Checkout stalls without a payment response

Illustrative sample. Verify this behavior in your repository using authorized test data; do not assume a root cause.

OBSERVED BEHAVIOR
In this sample, the $129 checkout remains unchanged after Pay is selected. The screen gives no indication whether payment started or failed.

REPRODUCTION
1. Add the $129 headphones to the cart.
2. Continue to checkout and select a test payment method.
3. Select Pay. Observe that the checkout shows no response.

EXPECTED BEHAVIOR
Payment submission shows a clear pending state, then a confirmation or an actionable error. A repeated click must not create a duplicate payment.

SCOPE
Investigate the checkout submission path and restore visible feedback for the result. Use the existing payment integration and test fixtures; do not make real charges.

Reproduce first, locate the cause, and make a minimal fix following existing patterns. Add a meaningful regression test. Report actual verification results and unresolved questions. If reproduction fails, explain the missing context.

VERIFICATION
- A successful test payment reaches confirmation.
- A failed test payment shows an error and allows a safe retry.
- Repeated clicks during submission do not create duplicate payments.

Security holes Private invoices exposed across accounts

Sample reportSecurity holes

Private invoices exposed across accounts

A user signed in to Account A can open an invoice belonging to Account B.

DigletYour team

Give your team a clear next step.

Evidence, reproduction steps, and resolution checks.

For code changes, Diglet can hand the finding to your coding agent.

Claude Code
ChatGPT / Codex
Cursor
GitHub Copilot

Book a demo

Recommended action

Find why one account can view another account’s invoice and restore the access boundary.

EvidenceWhat failed and what Diglet observed
ReproductionThe steps to make it happen again
Resolution checksThe expected outcome to verify

View the evidence

Evidence

The session belongs to Account A, but the opened test invoice belongs to Account B and reveals its $249 total.

Workspace → Invoices → INV-1040

Reproduce it

Use authorized test fixtures for two separate accounts: Account A and Account B.
Sign in as an Account A user.
Open Account B’s test invoice INV-1040. Observe that its details are accessible.

Expected outcome

A user can list and retrieve only the invoices their account is authorized to access. Access to an invoice from another account is denied without revealing its data.

Resolution checks

Account A cannot see Account B invoices in the list.
A direct request for Account B’s test invoice is denied for Account A.
An authorized Account B user can still open their own invoice.

Copy for your coding agent

Coding agent prompt

The finding, evidence, and resolution checks, ready to paste into your workflow.

Investigate and fix: Private invoices exposed across accounts

Illustrative sample. Verify this behavior in your repository using authorized test data; do not assume a root cause.

OBSERVED BEHAVIOR
The session belongs to Account A, but the opened test invoice belongs to Account B and reveals its $249 total.

REPRODUCTION
1. Use authorized test fixtures for two separate accounts: Account A and Account B.
2. Sign in as an Account A user.
3. Open Account B’s test invoice INV-1040. Observe that its details are accessible.

EXPECTED BEHAVIOR
A user can list and retrieve only the invoices their account is authorized to access. Access to an invoice from another account is denied without revealing its data.

SCOPE
Trace invoice listing and retrieval authorization. Fix the account boundary at the appropriate server-side layer, including direct access to an invoice; hiding a row in the interface alone is insufficient. Use test data only.

Reproduce first, locate the cause, and make a minimal fix following existing patterns. Add a meaningful regression test. Report actual verification results and unresolved questions. If reproduction fails, explain the missing context.

VERIFICATION
- Account A cannot see Account B invoices in the list.
- A direct request for Account B’s test invoice is denied for Account A.
- An authorized Account B user can still open their own invoice.

Compliance gaps Analytics runs after cookies are rejected

Sample reportCompliance gaps

Analytics runs after cookies are rejected

The visitor rejects optional cookies, but analytics still starts, contrary to the team’s configured requirement.

DigletYour team

Give your team a clear next step.

Evidence, reproduction steps, and resolution checks.

For code changes, Diglet can hand the finding to your coding agent.

Claude Code
ChatGPT / Codex
Cursor
GitHub Copilot

Book a demo

Recommended action

Honor the configured consent rule so rejected optional analytics stays off.

EvidenceWhat failed and what Diglet observed
ReproductionThe steps to make it happen again
Resolution checksThe expected outcome to verify

View the evidence

Evidence

In a fresh test session, Reject optional is selected. Consent is recorded as rejected, but captured browser activity still shows an analytics request.

Website → Cookie preferences → Reject optional

Reproduce it

Open the test site with no saved consent choice.
Choose Reject optional in the cookie panel.
Inspect recorded browser activity: optional analytics still sends a request.

Expected outcome

Under this team’s policy, optional analytics starts only after explicit acceptance. Rejecting optional cookies leaves necessary site features working.

Resolution checks

Before a choice and after rejection, no optional analytics requests are sent.
Explicit acceptance allows optional analytics.
A saved rejection is respected after reload and navigation.
Necessary site features continue to work.

Copy for your coding agent

Coding agent prompt

The finding, evidence, and resolution checks, ready to paste into your workflow.

Investigate and fix: Analytics runs after cookies are rejected

Illustrative sample. Verify this behavior in your repository using authorized test data; do not assume a root cause.

OBSERVED BEHAVIOR
In a fresh test session, Reject optional is selected. Consent is recorded as rejected, but captured browser activity still shows an analytics request.

REPRODUCTION
1. Open the test site with no saved consent choice.
2. Choose Reject optional in the cookie panel.
3. Inspect recorded browser activity: optional analytics still sends a request.

EXPECTED BEHAVIOR
Under this team’s policy, optional analytics starts only after explicit acceptance. Rejecting optional cookies leaves necessary site features working.

SCOPE
Trace consent handling and analytics initialization. Enforce the configured rule, “Start optional analytics only after acceptance,” across initial load and navigation, using the existing consent system.

Reproduce first, locate the cause, and make a minimal fix following existing patterns. Add a meaningful regression test. Report actual verification results and unresolved questions. If reproduction fails, explain the missing context.

VERIFICATION
- Before a choice and after rejection, no optional analytics requests are sent.
- Explicit acceptance allows optional analytics.
- A saved rejection is respected after reload and navigation.
- Necessary site features continue to work.

UX barriers Sign-in focus disappears for keyboard users

Sample reportUX barriers

Sign-in focus disappears for keyboard users

Tab reaches the Sign in button, but a keyboard user cannot see that the button has focus.

DigletYour team

Give your team a clear next step.

Evidence, reproduction steps, and resolution checks.

For code changes, Diglet can hand the finding to your coding agent.

Claude Code
ChatGPT / Codex
Cursor
GitHub Copilot

Book a demo

Recommended action

Restore visible keyboard focus so users can follow the sign-in journey.

EvidenceWhat failed and what Diglet observed
ReproductionThe steps to make it happen again
Resolution checksThe expected outcome to verify

View the evidence

Evidence

In the illustrative keyboard sequence, focus moves through email and password to Sign in. The button has no visible focus indicator.

Reproduce it

Open the sign-in screen without using a mouse.
Press Tab to move through the email and password fields.
Tab to Sign in. Observe that its focused state is not visible.

Expected outcome

Keyboard focus remains clearly visible on each interactive element, including Sign in, and the form can be completed using the keyboard.

Resolution checks

Tab and Shift+Tab follow a logical order with visible focus.
The Sign in button has a clear focus indicator on the page background.
Enter or Space activates the focused button and the form still submits.

Copy for your coding agent

Coding agent prompt

The finding, evidence, and resolution checks, ready to paste into your workflow.

Investigate and fix: Sign-in focus disappears for keyboard users

Illustrative sample. Verify this behavior in your repository using authorized test data; do not assume a root cause.

OBSERVED BEHAVIOR
In the illustrative keyboard sequence, focus moves through email and password to Sign in. The button has no visible focus indicator.

REPRODUCTION
1. Open the sign-in screen without using a mouse.
2. Press Tab to move through the email and password fields.
3. Tab to Sign in. Observe that its focused state is not visible.

EXPECTED BEHAVIOR
Keyboard focus remains clearly visible on each interactive element, including Sign in, and the form can be completed using the keyboard.

SCOPE
Find why the sign-in button loses its visible keyboard focus treatment. Restore an appropriate focus state using the existing design system while preserving normal keyboard order and submission behavior.

Reproduce first, locate the cause, and make a minimal fix following existing patterns. Add a meaningful regression test. Report actual verification results and unresolved questions. If reproduction fails, explain the missing context.

VERIFICATION
- Tab and Shift+Tab follow a logical order with visible focus.
- The Sign in button has a clear focus indicator on the page background.
- Enter or Space activates the focused button and the form still submits.

Which reliability problem should we discuss?

Book a demo →[email protected]

From a failed journeyto a clear next step.

Start with a critical workflow.

Check what actually happens.

Give your team a clear next step.

Give your team a clear next step.

Evidence

Reproduce it

Expected outcome

Coding agent prompt

Give your team a clear next step.

Evidence

Reproduce it

Expected outcome

Coding agent prompt

Give your team a clear next step.

Evidence

Reproduce it

Expected outcome

Coding agent prompt

Give your team a clear next step.

Evidence

Reproduce it

Expected outcome

Coding agent prompt

Which reliability problem should we discuss?

From a failed journey
to a clear next step.