11. Look-alikes that are not Vitest tests

Framework	Import shape	Distinguishing signal
Playwright Test	import { test, expect } from '@playwright/test' (or a project fixture wrapper re-exporting test)	Import specifier is @playwright/test (or a local file that itself imports from it), not 'vitest'. Callback receives Playwright fixtures (page, context, browser, request), recognizably different fixture vocabulary from Vitest’s TestContext. test.describe, test.beforeEach exist in both frameworks with similar shapes, so import-specifier resolution (not name matching) is the only reliable static signal.
Jest	test/it/describe as ambient globals (Jest’s own globals-like default), or import { test, describe, expect } from '@jest/globals'	No 'vitest' import anywhere in the file/module graph; presence of jest.config.* instead of vitest/vite config at the resolved project root; use of jest.fn()/jest.mock() instead of vi.fn()/vi.mock() is a strong corroborating (but not exhaustive) signal since some codebases alias vi to jest-like helpers.
Cypress	describe/it as ambient Mocha-style globals injected by the Cypress test runner; cy.* commands in the body	No 'vitest' import; presence of cypress.config.* at project root; body uses cy.visit, cy.get, etc., a distinct global command object with no Vitest analogue.
node:test	import { test, describe } from 'node:test' or require('node:test')	Import specifier is the node:test builtin, not 'vitest', so the analyzer deliberately extracts zero Vitest declarations from these bindings. node:test also lacks .each/.for/.extend in the same shape (it has its own, smaller modifier set) and typically pairs with node:assert rather than Vitest’s expect.
Mocha/Jasmine (via globals: true-like ambient describe/it)	Ambient describe/it, before/after/beforeEach/afterEach (note: before/after, not beforeAll/afterAll)	The hook names before/after (rather than beforeAll/afterAll) are a Mocha-specific tell; no 'vitest' import; presence of .mocharc.*.

How to tell them apart statically, in priority order:

1. Resolve the import specifier of the binding used to call test/describe/etc. via oxc_semantic. If it traces to 'vitest' (directly or through a namespace import), it’s Vitest, full stop, this dominates every other heuristic.
2. If the binding is not imported at all (a bare global), it is only a Vitest test if the file’s resolved project config has globals: true and no other globally-injected test framework is active for that project (Vitest and Jest/Mocha/Cypress globals are not normally combined in one project, but a monorepo could have different projects using different runners, hence resolving config per project, §10, matters here too).
3. If the binding traces to a different package specifier (@playwright/test, @jest/globals, node:test, a Cypress support-file global, etc.), it is definitively not a Vitest test, regardless of how structurally similar the call shape looks (describe(str, fn) is common to nearly every one of these frameworks).
4. As a last-resort corroborating signal only (never load-bearing on its own): co-occurring framework-specific calls in the same file (cy.*, page.* Playwright fixtures, jest.*), and the presence/absence of a vitest/vite config file at the resolved project root vs. a playwright.config.*/jest.config.*/cypress.config.*.

Back to the Vitest surface index.