[tonyww]

Good question. On the surface, it does look very similar to the traditional scraper/script, but there's a subtle difference in where the logic lives and how failures are handled.

A traditional scraper/script hard-codes selectors and control flow up front. When the layout changes, it usually breaks at an arbitrary line and you debug it manually.

In this setup, the agent chooses actions at *runtime* from a bounded action space, and the system uses the built-in predicates (e.g. url_changes, drawer_appeared, etc) to verify the outcomes. When it fails, it fails at a specific semantic assertion with artifacts, not a missing selector.

So it’s less “replace scripts” and more “apply test-style verification and recovery to AI-driven decisions instead of static code.”