mobile-ux-architect
Skill3 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Turn a mobile product brief or feature definition into an actionable UX architecture covering actors, journeys, task flows, decisions, recovery paths, information architecture, navigation, screen map, object lifecycles, state matrix, permissions, device surfaces, and meaningful iOS/Android differences. Use before mobile wireframes, UI design, prototypes, or implementation, and when an existing mobile flow needs restructuring or completeness review.
In this repository11 other files it gives its agents.
- analyze-mobile-uiSkill
- mobile-design-osSkill
- mobile-design-reviewSkill
- mobile-design-systemSkill
- mobile-design-to-codeSkill
- mobile-platform-guidelinesSkill
- mobile-product-briefSkill
- mobile-prototypeSkill
- mobile-reference-researchSkill
- mobile-ui-designSkill
- mobile-wireframeSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
18 rules. About 0 are common, 12 are distinctive, and 6 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈12
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
6
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 16
Use mobile-product-brief first when the user problem, audience, activation, MVP boundary, or trust model is unresolved.
- Very specific: line 20
Prefer product-brief.json plus its human-readable brief.
- Distinctive: line 27
Stop and request a decision only when an unresolved issue changes the safety model, primary actor, core value loop, or MVP boundary.
- Distinctive: line 35
Do not silently add scope.
- Distinctive: line 41
Read references/flow-modeling.md for actor, object, flow, and state rules.
- Very specific: line 53
Create stable F1, F2, and later flow IDs.
- Distinctive: line 62
Use Mermaid only when it materially clarifies branching.
- Distinctive: line 68
Read references/mobile-ia-patterns.md before finalizing navigation.
- Distinctive: line 82
Do not create a separate screen when a state, sheet, dialog, inline disclosure, or system surface is more appropriate.
- Distinctive: line 88
Every state needs a trigger, user-visible meaning, available action, recovery, and owning screen or surface.
- Very specific: line 104
Every must requirement maps to a scenario, flow, screen, and acceptance signal where applicable.
- Distinctive: line 105
Every screen maps to at least one requirement or platform obligation.
- Distinctive: line 106
Every destructive or sensitive action has confirmation, consequence copy, and recovery when possible.
- Distinctive: line 112
When files are requested or the Skill is part of a design workflow, create:
- Very specific: line 118
Run python3 scripts/validate_ux_architecture.py <path-to-ux-architecture.json> and fix every error.
- Very specific: line 120
When a low-fidelity layout contract is needed before visual styling, hand the validated architecture to mobile-wireframe.
- Distinctive: line 137
Read references/ux-architecture-rubric.md and revise every blocker before completing.
- Distinctive: line 139
Do not finish until critical flows are decision-complete, must-have requirements are traceable, recovery is explicit, platform differences …
≈ “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
Mobile UX Architect
Translate product intent into a traceable interaction structure. Define what each screen and state must accomplish without choosing visual style or drawing wireframes.
Select the mode
- Create: derive a new UX architecture from a product brief.
- Refine: resolve gaps, contradictions, or excess complexity in an existing flow.
- Feature: insert a bounded feature into an existing navigation and object model.
Use mobile-product-brief first when the user problem, audience, activation, MVP boundary, or trust model is unresolved. Use mobile-reference-research for source discovery and analyze-mobile-ui for detailed reference analysis when reference products drive key decisions.
Establish the input contract
Prefer product-brief.json plus its human-readable brief. Validate the upstream JSON when its validator is available. Record:
- Source brief path, schema version, and date.
- Primary actors, scenarios, objects, constraints, and open decisions.
- Required platform and device integrations.
- Assumptions added by this Skill.
Stop and request a decision only when an unresolved issue changes the safety model, primary actor, core value loop, or MVP boundary. Otherwise proceed with a labeled assumption.
Follow the workflow
1. Create a requirement ledger
Translate the brief into stable R1, R2, and later requirement IDs. Preserve the source path and mark each item must, should, or could. Include product value, trust, accessibility, recovery, and platform requirements—not just features.
Do not silently add scope. New UX assumptions remain separate from upstream decisions.
2. Model actors and objects
Define each actor's goal, permissions, and ownership boundaries. Model durable objects and their lifecycle states before naming screens. Examples include invitation, membership, draft, order, check-in, delivery, permission, and widget configuration.
Read references/flow-modeling.md for actor, object, flow, and state rules.
3. Prioritize scenarios
List entry, activation, repeat-use, recovery, management, and exit scenarios. Assign critical, important, or supporting priority. Every must-have requirement must appear in at least one scenario.
4. Map user journeys
For each critical scenario, show trigger, user intent, steps, system feedback, friction or uncertainty, recovery, and observable outcome. Do not invent emotion as a fact; mark anticipated concerns as design risks.
5. Build decision-complete task flows
Create stable F1, F2, and later flow IDs. Include:
- Entry conditions and deep links.
- User actions and system responses.
- Decisions and branches.
- Permission denial, cancellation, timeout, offline, conflict, and partial failure where applicable.
- Completion condition and safe exit.
- Resume behavior after interruption.
Use Mermaid only when it materially clarifies branching. Keep the structured JSON authoritative.
6. Design information architecture
Choose top-level destinations from recurring user goals, not a desired tab count. Separate persistent destinations, hierarchical detail, modal tasks, global overlays, and system handoffs. Define back behavior, state preservation, deep links, and where unfinished work resumes.
Read references/mobile-ia-patterns.md before finalizing navigation.
7. Build the screen map
Assign stable S1, S2, and later screen IDs. For each screen specify:
- Single responsibility and user question answered.
- Entry points and exit destinations.
- Primary and secondary actions.
- Objects read or changed.
- Required states and recovery.
- Requirement and flow coverage.
- Platform-specific expression where behavior differs.
Do not create a separate screen when a state, sheet, dialog, inline disclosure, or system surface is more appropriate. Do not specify color, typography, pixel layout, or decorative components.
8. Complete the state matrix
Cover applicable first-use, empty, partial, loading, slow, offline, failed, retrying, permission, account, object lifecycle, destructive, blocked, stale, expired, conflict, and accessibility-pressure states.
Every state needs a trigger, user-visible meaning, available action, recovery, and owning screen or surface. Never use a generic “error state” to hide distinct consequences.
9. Specify permissions and device surfaces
For each permission define contextual pre-prompt, system prompt trigger, denial behavior, restricted state, settings recovery, and core-value fallback.
For widgets, notifications, Live Activities, lock-screen controls, sensors, cameras, biometrics, and similar surfaces define activation, freshness, privacy exposure, tap destination, unsupported behavior, and platform differences. A system surface cannot be the only path to core value.
10. Preserve platform behavior
Define outcome parity separately from implementation parity. Record meaningful differences in navigation, back behavior, sheets, permission flow, widgets, system settings, target sizes, insets, text scaling, process restoration, and assistive technology.
11. Check traceability and complexity
Require:
- Every
mustrequirement maps to a scenario, flow, screen, and acceptance signal where applicable. - Every screen maps to at least one requirement or platform obligation.
- Every destructive or sensitive action has confirmation, consequence copy, and recovery when possible.
- Critical flows have non-happy paths and interruption behavior.
- The architecture contains no orphan screen, dead-end state, or circular dependency without an exit.
12. Produce and validate
When files are requested or the Skill is part of a design workflow, create:
ux-flow.mdusing assets/ux-flow-template.md.screen-map.mdusing assets/screen-map-template.md.ux-architecture.jsonusing assets/ux-architecture-template.json and references/ux-architecture-schema.md.
Run python3 scripts/validate_ux_architecture.py <path-to-ux-architecture.json> and fix every error. Treat warnings as review prompts.
When a low-fidelity layout contract is needed before visual styling, hand the validated architecture to mobile-wireframe; do not overload this Skill with visual layout decisions.
Enforce the output order
- Architecture summary and source contract.
- Requirement ledger and assumptions.
- Actors, objects, and lifecycle states.
- Prioritized scenarios and journeys.
- Critical task flows and recovery.
- Information architecture and navigation.
- Screen map and screen responsibilities.
- State, permission, and device-surface matrices.
- Platform differences, traceability, and acceptance signals.
- Open questions and confidence.
Run the quality gate
Read references/ux-architecture-rubric.md and revise every blocker before completing.
Do not finish until critical flows are decision-complete, must-have requirements are traceable, recovery is explicit, platform differences are meaningful, and the output remains visual-design agnostic.
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.

