Weavatrix Quality vs Sniff

In-depth architectural comparison of the Weavatrix Quality and Sniff MCP servers. Compare execution transports, security boundaries, tool capabilities, quality scores, and ready-to-paste client installation snippets for Claude, Cursor, Windsurf, and VS Code.

Which MCP Server Should You Choose?

Choose Weavatrix Quality when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Browser Automation domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore Weavatrix Quality Details

Choose Sniff when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Browser Automation domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore Sniff Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	Weavatrix Quality Browser Automation	Sniff Browser Automation
Summary	Revision-bound quality planning, execution, evidence, proof, and Playwright authoring.	QA + a11y scanner: walks your running app's real user flows and reports what's broken.
Category & Scope	Browser Automation	Browser Automation
Quality signal

Tools & Capabilities Breakdown

Ready-to-Paste Client Configurations

Paste either (or both) of these JSON server blocks into your client config file (e.g. claude_desktop_config.json or ~/.cursor/mcp.json).

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "weavatrix-quality": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "@weavatrix/wvq@0.1.0-alpha.3"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "sniff": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "skills"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons