replica-diff
Skill399 starsChanged 40 days agoMITView on GitHub
Compares an app clone against the original: a feature parity score from the feature matrix (weighted by must, should, could) with the missing list in build order, plus a screenshot layout diff that ignores colour so a rebrand does not count against you. Two standard-library Python tools. Use when the user says "how close is my clone", "compare it to the original", "what's missing", "parity check", "diff the screens", "is it ready", or after /replica-test.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- realtahailyas/reverse-engineer-app-skillsword for word, first seen Oct 25, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- realtahailyas/reverse-engineer-app-skills★ 3100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository10 other files it gives its agents.
- replica-architectSkill
- replica-backendSkill
- replica-brandSkill
- replica-buildSkill
- replica-deploySkill
- replica-designSkill
- replica-entrepreneurSkill
- replica-launchSkill
- replica-reconSkill
- replica-testSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 36
Make sure replica/features.csv is current: every row's clone column is yes, partial (with a note), no, or skip (with a reason).
- Distinctive: line 83
shippable: all must-haves done, feature score 80+, no open S1 or S2
≈ “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
replica-diff
Two tools in this folder, both standard-library Python, no installs:
python3 parity.py replica/features.csv # feature parity + missing list
python3 imgdiff.py replica/screens/S07.png replica/clone-screens/S07.png --out diff-S07.png
python3 imgdiff.py a.png b.png --json > replica/diffs/S07.json # for parity.py --visual
python3 parity.py replica/features.csv --visual replica/diffs/*.json --markdown > replica/parity.mdWhat parity means here
Parity means it does the same job, not that it looks the same. The feature score is the number that matters: can a user do everything they could do in the original. The layout score checks structure (is the information in the same places, in the same hierarchy), because that is what makes a switcher feel at home. It deliberately ignores colour, because replica-brand changes every colour on purpose. Do not chase pixel parity with the original. Its exact look is its trade dress, and it changes before launch.
Step 1: feature parity
Make sure replica/features.csv is current: every row's clone column is
yes, partial (with a note), no, or skip (with a reason). Then:
python3 parity.py replica/features.csvIt weights must 3, should 2, could 1, counts partial as half, leaves out
skip rows and rows you added that the original does not have, and prints:
the score, must-haves done of total, each area weakest first, and the missing
list in build order. Must-haves not done means not shippable, and it says so.
Step 2: layout diff
For each key screen, take two screenshots at the same viewport (1440x900
desktop, 390x844 mobile) in the same state (same data shape, same tab
open, logged in the same way). The original's come from public pages or the
user's own account, saved in replica/screens/. The clone's go in
replica/clone-screens/.
python3 imgdiff.py replica/screens/S07.png replica/clone-screens/S07.png --out replica/diffs/S07.pngLayout mode (default) turns both into edge maps, cuts them into a grid, and compares where things are, scoring only cells with something in them. It reports the score (matches 90+, close 75+, partly 50+, different), the regions that differ (in the original's pixel coordinates, biggest first), and a height difference if the clone's page is much longer or shorter. Retina and non-retina screenshots compare fine: both are scaled to the same width.
--mode pixel is exact comparison. Use it for your own regressions (clone
today against clone last week), not against the original.
Step 3: behaviour diff
Walk each flow in both apps and compare what the scores cannot see: clicks to finish the core flow, what happens on errors, what is remembered between visits, what emails arrive. Fewer clicks than the original is a win. Write each difference as: flow, original does, clone does, fix or keep.
Step 4: the report
replica/parity.md: overall score, feature score, layout score per screen,
missing features in build order, behaviour differences, and a verdict:
- not shippable: any must-have missing, or any open S1 bug
- shippable: all must-haves done, feature score 80+, no open S1 or S2
- better than the original: shippable, plus fixes from replica-entrepreneur. This is the goal. A straight copy has no reason to exist.
Give honest numbers. A clone at 62% is at 62%.
Output
replica/parity.md, the diff images, and the top five things to build next.
Then /replica-build for the gaps, or /replica-entrepreneur if parity is
there.
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.

