I think the main thing I need to do is improve my documentation. I don't think I made myself clear.

This thing doesn't check configuration at all, it checks if features are working properly by getting web pages that use those features.

The thing that's different about my approach is I can write a single perl script and point it at any compliant test web page.

With Test::WWW::Mechanize, you have to write a web page that uses a feature and a specific script that looks at that web page. With my system, you write the web page and all you have to do with the script is point it at the web page.

Here's a scenario example:

I have 3 web servers, they each do SSI and PHP, but only one has a mysql server. I write a web page that uses some SSI features, another web page that uses some PHP features and another web page that connects to the mysql server and does a few things. I copy the 1st two pages to all 3 servers and the mysql test page only to the server with mysql. Now, I can either use Test::WWW::Mechanize and write a script or scripts that know exactly what to expect from all of those web pages, or I can write my one script that will be able to understand them all.

And! If I decide that I want to test another aspect of, say my PHP interpreter, I only need to edit the test web page. I can leave my script alone. Much more scalable!