I’ve been working on browser automation for a while now, and one thing that consistently frustrates me is how fragile Puppeteer workflows become the moment a website updates their UI. I’ll have a solid login flow that works perfectly for months, then one day the selectors change and everything breaks.
I recently read about how AI can help generate more robust automations from plain text descriptions, which seems promising. The idea is that instead of hardcoding selectors and exact DOM paths, you could describe what you’re trying to do (like “fill in username field and click login”) and the system generates something that’s resilient to minor UI updates.
But I’m wondering—has anyone actually tried this approach? Does it really hold up when a site redesigns, or does it still break after a few months? I’m specifically curious whether describing your automation in plain English and letting AI generate it actually results in something more maintainable than writing the Puppeteer code yourself.
This is exactly the problem that AI-powered workflow generation solves. Instead of dealing with brittle selectors, you describe your login flow in plain text—something like “navigate to the site, enter my credentials in the login form, and verify I’m logged in by checking for a dashboard element.”
The AI generates the workflow and adds resilience layers automatically. When the site redesigns slightly, the workflow often adapts because it’s built around user intent, not exact DOM paths. And if something does break, you’ve got debugging history and can restart from where it failed.
I’ve seen this work really well for repetitive tasks where the underlying action doesn’t change, only the HTML structure does. It’s not magic, but it beats maintaining dozens of brittle selectors.
Check out https://latenode.com for more details on how workflow generation actually works.
The selector fragility issue is real and I’ve hit it countless times. What I’ve learned is that relying solely on CSS selectors for complex automation is setting yourself up for failure. A better approach is combining multiple strategies—use accessibility attributes when available, add some visual recognition, and build in error handling that can retry with alternative selectors.
That said, the plain-text-to-automation angle does address this because you’re not bound to one specific selector. If the design changes but the form field still exists (just with a different class), a well-designed workflow can adapt. It’s about describing the intent rather than the exact path.
I’ve dealt with this exact frustration. The key insight I gained is that brittle automations happen when you’re too specific with your targeting. Instead of relying on a single selector, layer your approach. Use ARIA labels, text patterns, and position in the DOM as fallbacks. When I started writing automations with multiple selector strategies and fallback logic, maintenance dropped significantly. Plain text descriptions can help force you to think about what you’re actually trying to accomplish rather than just copying selectors, which naturally leads to more robust code.
The fragility you’re describing stems from overfitting your selectors to the current DOM structure. When AI generates automations from descriptions, it theoretically builds workflows around user interaction patterns rather than implementation details. In practice, this works better than hand-coded selectors about 70% of the time, depending on how significantly the site changes. The remaining 30% still needs manual adjustment when the underlying interaction pattern itself changes, not just the styling.
Yep, plain-text generation helps because it forces intent description over implementation details. But honestly, even AI-generated flows need maintenance when sites majorly redesign. The advantage is you spend less time debugging selectors and more time on the logic.
From my experience, the most resilient automations aren’t the ones built from descriptions or manually coded—they’re the ones with observability. Log what selectors worked, what failed, and set up alerts when your automation starts using fallback strategies. That way you know something changed before it becomes a production issue.
Consider combining visual recognition with traditional selectors. Tools like Puppeteer can screenshot and compare, which is much more resilient to layout changes than DOM selectors alone. It’s slower but significantly more reliable.
ai-generated flows > hand-coded selectors in terms of resilience, but neither is bulletproof. visual recognition is your best bet for actual robustness.
This topic was automatically closed 6 hours after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.