agentleFS
Fay1YeeFay1Yee/design-agent-skills/skills/design-qa-evidence-pack/SKILL.md

design-qa-evidence-pack

Skill1 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Audit an implemented interface or interactive prototype against explicit design acceptance criteria and return a traceable evidence pack with Pass, Fail, Blocked, or NA status for every check. Use for pre-handoff design QA, responsive viewport verification, screenshot or approved-reference comparison, interaction-state review, motion review, overflow checks, console inspection, keyboard checks, and design regression checks. Work read-only, never repair the target, and never convert missing evidence into a pass.

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

17 rules. About 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 8 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈9

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 8

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Verify the scoped implementation and produce evidence that another reviewer can reproduce.

    line 8
  2. Distinctive:

    Do not edit files, generate patches, fix defects, refactor code, change tokens, or update content.

    line 13
  3. Distinctive:

    Do not install dependencies or run commands that write build output, caches, snapshots, or lockfiles into the target.

    line 14
  4. Distinctive:

    Use an existing URL, running environment, static file, or already-built artifact.

    line 15
  5. Distinctive:

    When build verification is required, use a disposable copy or tool-supported output and cache paths outside the target.

    line 16
  6. Distinctive:

    Stop after the evidence pack.

    line 20
  7. Very specific:

    Use 1440 × 900, 834 × 1194, and 390 × 844 as coverage defaults only when the user supplies no viewport set.

    line 33
  8. Very specific:

    Do not invent acceptance criteria.

    line 35
  9. Very specific:

    Create one check for each criterion × route/component × state × viewport combination that matters.

    line 39
  10. Distinctive:

    Read qa-evidence-schema.md for the status rubric, evidence fields, and coverage checklist.

    line 41
  11. Distinctive:

    Keep factual content verification outside this skill unless the acceptance source contains the exact expected text.

    line 53
  12. Distinctive:

    Never use visual similarity alone to verify behavior.

    line 70
  13. Very specific:

    Use Pass only when direct evidence satisfies the stated criterion.

    line 74
  14. Very specific:

    Use Fail only when direct evidence contradicts the stated criterion.

    line 75
  15. Very specific:

    Use Blocked when the check cannot be completed or judged.

    line 76
  16. Very specific:

    Use NA when the criterion does not apply to the scoped surface or state.

    line 77
  17. Very specific:

    Do not infer Pass from absence of an observed failure.

    line 79

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Design QA Evidence Pack

Verify the scoped implementation and produce evidence that another reviewer can reproduce. Report findings without changing the target.

Enforce the boundary

  • Work read-only against the target, repository, design, data, and configuration.
  • Do not edit files, generate patches, fix defects, refactor code, change tokens, or update content.
  • Do not install dependencies or run commands that write build output, caches, snapshots, or lockfiles into the target.
  • Use an existing URL, running environment, static file, or already-built artifact.
  • When build verification is required, use a disposable copy or tool-supported output and cache paths outside the target. Record the exact command and disposable location.
  • Allow only transient, non-destructive UI interactions. Avoid submissions, uploads, deletions, purchases, messages, or any action that changes persistent data.
  • Store screenshots only in a temporary or tool-managed evidence location outside the target when capture is available.
  • Mark a check Blocked when verification requires mutation, missing access, unavailable tooling, absent requirements, or an unusable environment.
  • Stop after the evidence pack. Do not include repair instructions or implementation recommendations.

Establish the test contract

Collect:

  • target URL or artifact;
  • build, commit, version, or timestamp when available;
  • routes, components, user states, and interactions in scope;
  • approved reference and acceptance criteria;
  • required browsers, devices, viewports, themes, locales, and motion preferences;
  • exclusions and known limitations.

Use 1440 × 900, 834 × 1194, and 390 × 844 as coverage defaults only when the user supplies no viewport set. Label them as test defaults, not product requirements.

Do not invent acceptance criteria. Mark subjective or unspecified comparisons Blocked and identify the missing approval source.

Build the matrix

Create one check for each criterion × route/component × state × viewport combination that matters. Assign stable IDs such as V-01, R-03, or I-02.

Read qa-evidence-schema.md for the status rubric, evidence fields, and coverage checklist.

Prioritize:

  • reference fidelity;
  • hierarchy, spacing, alignment, crop, and token use;
  • responsive recomposition and overflow;
  • required interaction states and recovery;
  • motion sequence, continuity, interruption, and reduced-motion behavior;
  • text clipping, asset failures, and console errors;
  • keyboard reachability, focus visibility, semantics, and obvious contrast failures.

Keep factual content verification outside this skill unless the acceptance source contains the exact expected text. Verify presence, truncation, and placement; do not research truth claims.

Execute reproducibly

  1. Record the environment, viewport, route, initial state, and timestamp.
  2. Reset to a known state before each check when reset is non-destructive.
  3. Perform one scoped interaction sequence at a time.
  4. Capture the smallest evidence that proves the result:
    • screenshot or frame;
    • DOM, computed-style, bounding-box, or overflow measurement;
    • console entry;
    • focus order or keyboard trace;
    • exact observed text or state transition;
    • reference comparison with both sources identified.
  5. Record expected and observed outcomes separately.
  6. Preserve raw observations. Label interpretations.

Never use visual similarity alone to verify behavior. Never use a working interaction alone to claim visual fidelity.

Assign one status

  • Use Pass only when direct evidence satisfies the stated criterion.
  • Use Fail only when direct evidence contradicts the stated criterion.
  • Use Blocked when the check cannot be completed or judged.
  • Use NA when the criterion does not apply to the scoped surface or state; include the reason.

Do not infer Pass from absence of an observed failure. Do not average multiple checks into one status. Split mixed outcomes into separate checks.

Return the evidence pack

Return sections in this order:

  1. Test identity — target, version, environment, time, and evidence location.
  2. Scope and acceptance sources — tested and excluded surfaces.
  3. Status summary — counts for Pass, Fail, Blocked, and NA.
  4. Evidence matrix — ID, criterion, context, expected, observed, evidence, and status.
  5. Failures — reproduce each failed observation without prescribing a repair.
  6. Blocked checks — name the missing access, artifact, requirement, or environment.
  7. Coverage gaps — disclose untested routes, states, viewports, or preferences.
  8. Read-only statement — confirm that no target changes or fixes were made.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.