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.
In this repository16 other files it gives its agents.
- analyze-brand-web-experienceSkill
- audit-public-report-languageSkill
- build-before-after-change-deckSkill
- build-design-skill-packageSkill
- build-html-sharing-reportSkill
- content-source-truth-auditorSkill
- context-first-design-executionSkill
- cross-device-recomposition-specSkill
- design-feedback-to-ruleSkill
- design-system-contract-lockSkill
- enforce-ui-visual-restraintSkill
- extract-design-systemSkill
- html-to-figma-workflowSkill
- interaction-specimen-builderSkill
- sync-responsive-figma-from-webSkill
- web-design-guidelinesSkill
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
- Distinctive: line 8
Verify the scoped implementation and produce evidence that another reviewer can reproduce.
- Distinctive: line 13
Do not edit files, generate patches, fix defects, refactor code, change tokens, or update content.
- Distinctive: line 14
Do not install dependencies or run commands that write build output, caches, snapshots, or lockfiles into the target.
- Distinctive: line 15
Use an existing URL, running environment, static file, or already-built artifact.
- Distinctive: line 16
When build verification is required, use a disposable copy or tool-supported output and cache paths outside the target.
- Distinctive: line 20
Stop after the evidence pack.
- Very specific: line 33
Use 1440 × 900, 834 × 1194, and 390 × 844 as coverage defaults only when the user supplies no viewport set.
- Very specific: line 35
Do not invent acceptance criteria.
- Very specific: line 39
Create one check for each criterion × route/component × state × viewport combination that matters.
- Distinctive: line 41
Read qa-evidence-schema.md for the status rubric, evidence fields, and coverage checklist.
- Distinctive: line 53
Keep factual content verification outside this skill unless the acceptance source contains the exact expected text.
- Distinctive: line 70
Never use visual similarity alone to verify behavior.
- Very specific: line 74
Use Pass only when direct evidence satisfies the stated criterion.
- Very specific: line 75
Use Fail only when direct evidence contradicts the stated criterion.
- Very specific: line 76
Use Blocked when the check cannot be completed or judged.
- Very specific: line 77
Use NA when the criterion does not apply to the scoped surface or state.
- Very specific: line 79
Do not infer Pass from absence of an observed failure.
≈ “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.
Files
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
Blockedwhen 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
- Record the environment, viewport, route, initial state, and timestamp.
- Reset to a known state before each check when reset is non-destructive.
- Perform one scoped interaction sequence at a time.
- 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.
- Record expected and observed outcomes separately.
- 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
Passonly when direct evidence satisfies the stated criterion. - Use
Failonly when direct evidence contradicts the stated criterion. - Use
Blockedwhen the check cannot be completed or judged. - Use
NAwhen 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:
- Test identity — target, version, environment, time, and evidence location.
- Scope and acceptance sources — tested and excluded surfaces.
- Status summary — counts for Pass, Fail, Blocked, and NA.
- Evidence matrix — ID, criterion, context, expected, observed, evidence, and status.
- Failures — reproduce each failed observation without prescribing a repair.
- Blocked checks — name the missing access, artifact, requirement, or environment.
- Coverage gaps — disclose untested routes, states, viewports, or preferences.
- Read-only statement — confirm that no target changes or fixes were made.
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
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.

