08/09/2026
Developers get an AI subscription. Testers get a spreadsheet. Why?
Iโve had quite a few conversations with QA teams recently while helping them connect MCPs and AI agents.
Almost every time, I ask the same question:
โWhich AI subscription do you use?โ
The answer is usually:
โWe use ChatGPT or Gemini to generate tests, then copy paste the code into VS Code. We donโt have Claude Code or Copilot.โ
Somehow, weโve accepted that developers need AI to build software, while testers are expected to test it with spreadsheets, copy paste, and manual effort.
That needs to change.
AI isnโt just for writing code. QA can use it to improve coverage, speed, and quality.
For example:
โ Build QA agents tailored to your product and testing practices.
โ Use existing agents instead of building everything from scratch.
โ Use Playwright MCP and Vibium MCP to let AI interact with real browsers, explore applications, generate tests, and execute them.
โ Use Appium MCP for mobile testing.
โ Connect AI to your requirements, user stories, tickets, documentation, and defects using RAG, so generated tests understand your product.
โ Use AI to identify UI or locator changes and help repair broken automation.
โ Use AI for regression triage to separate real failures from flaky noise.
โ Extend testing into API, performance, security, and accessibility areas that often get skipped because there simply isnโt enough time.
This is not about saying:
โAI will write all your tests. We donโt need testers anymore.โ
Itโs about giving testers the same leverage developers already have.
AI doesnโt replace good testers.
It makes good testers more powerful.
If your developers have Copilot or Claude Code, while your QA team is still maintaining spreadsheets and manually creating test cases, you have more than a tooling imbalance.
You have an engineering bottleneck.
Give QA the tools.
Give them the tokens.
Give them the opportunity to build.
Then measure the impact on quality, coverage, and delivery speed.