When a coding agent can land another feature while someone is still clicking through the previous one, the manual release check is the part that doesn't speed up. The answer isn't simply to ask the same agent whether its work is done.
Its tests come from the same understanding of the task as its code. If the ticket left something out, both will miss it, and the test will pass.
What helps is writing the expected customer outcome before you review the implementation. For a settings change, that might mean saving a new value, leaving the page and verifying the value is still there when the user returns. A test that only checks for the new input field doesn't establish the same behavior.
That doesn't replace code review or lower-level tests. Unit tests are still faster and more precise for logic. A browser test earns its place where the requirement depends on the complete journey through the application, and that's the part an agent working on one component is least likely to see.
There's a practical question of who does this when changes are coming faster. I don't think the answer is more manual QA, or a big suite on day one. Start with the few flows you'd be embarrassed to break, and make sure they run before anything ships.
That's the problem I built Zerocheck for. You describe a flow or paste a checklist, read the steps and see what happened in a real browser. A coding agent can also run repository tests with the CLI and read the result. A generated draft is still a proposal, though, and a passing run only applies to the test that ran.
If you're working this way, this guide goes through the details.
US$500 in credits at sign up, with a dedicated instance and hands-on onboarding.
Book a setup call