handoff-to-dev
Skill2 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Specify, map, document, validate, and package an approved UX/UI design or prototype into build-ready behavior, component, responsive, state, accessibility, analytics, QA, and acceptance contracts. Trigger on "prepare developer handoff", "hand off to engineering", "create implementation specs", "spec this design", "document component behavior", or "write acceptance criteria". Do not use while the product model is still being redesigned or invent backend contracts.
1 other project uses a version of this, 1 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Gonadotrophic-tangent41/ux-ui-skillsedited, first seen Aug 9, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 1
- Gonadotrophic-tangent41/ux-ui-skills★ 058% same
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 repository6 other files it gives its agents.
- ai-product-designSkill
- case-study-writerSkill
- dashboard-redesignSkill
- design-system-reviewSkill
- product-designSkill
- ux-ui-auditSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. About 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈6
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
- Distinctive: line 37
Use existing component and token names.
- Distinctive: line 41
Read references/implementation-contract.md.
- Distinctive: line 43
Use measurements for fixed or bounded values only.
- Distinctive: line 51
Read references/state-and-responsive-matrix.md.
- Distinctive: line 57
Read references/accessibility-qa-and-acceptance.md.
- Distinctive: line 65
Only include approved analytics.
- Very specific: line 73
Use observable Given/When/Then statements or an equally testable format.
≈ “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
Handoff to Development
Specify intent, behavior, states, constraints, and verification so implementation requires no hidden product decisions or arbitrary pixel matching.
1. Confirm readiness
Collect:
Approved flow and decisions | Platforms, browsers, devices, locales, inputs | Components, tokens, code, versions | Content, data, permissions, latency, APIs | Accessibility target and test environment | Analytics, release, flags, rollout | Open decisions and owners
Label unresolved product, data, security, privacy, or technical decisions. Do not disguise them as visual annotations.
2. Map the critical flow
Write:
Entry -> Preconditions -> User action -> System response -> Branches -> Recovery -> Completion -> Return
Include deep link, refresh, back, cancel, interruption, duplicate submission, expired session, and partial completion where relevant. Define what state is retained.
3. Map design to system
For every visible region identify:
Design object | Code component | Variant | Tokens | Content/data | Event | Owner | Gap
Synthetic example: Address search | AddressAutocomplete | Default | semantic field tokens | Provider results | address_selected | Checkout | Timeout policy open
Use existing component and token names. Avoid raw pixel, color, and typography values when semantic tokens or layout constraints exist. Mark new components and variants explicitly; do not silently create one-off implementations.
4. Specify component behavior
Read references/implementation-contract.md. Define anatomy, hierarchy, variants, states, interactions, semantics, content limits, responsiveness, and events. State intent and invariants before exact dimensions.
Use measurements for fixed or bounded values only. For flexible layouts, specify container, grid, min/max, wrapping, truncation, overflow, intrinsic sizing, aspect ratio, alignment, and priority.
Synthetic contract:
Component: AddressAutocomplete | Intent: accelerate entry without blocking manual input | Trigger: eligible address query | Loading: retain query and announce status | Error: preserve values and expose manual entry | Invariant: selecting a suggestion never submits the form
5. Cover all states
Read references/state-and-responsive-matrix.md. Include default and consequential states across component, page, data, network, permission, and session levels.
Provide realistic fixtures for long labels, empty data, maximum values, errors, translated content, and slow responses. Do not let happy path only designs become an implementation requirement.
6. Specify accessibility
Read references/accessibility-qa-and-acceptance.md. Define:
Control or region | Semantic element | Name, role, state, value | Relationships | Keyboard and focus | Errors and status | Contrast, target, reflow, scaling, motion, touch | Accessible alternative
Reference relevant WCAG 2.2 criteria for requirements, but do not claim conformance from the specification alone.
7. Define telemetry and performance
Only include approved analytics. For each event specify:
Event | Trigger | Properties | Object ID | Success/failure | Privacy note | Owner
Define user-visible performance behavior: immediate acknowledgment, loading strategy, cancellation, optimistic update, timeout, retry, state preservation, and layout stability. Add numeric budgets only when product or engineering owns them.
8. Write acceptance criteria
Use observable Given/When/Then statements or an equally testable format. Cover behavior, data, states, responsiveness, accessibility, instrumentation, and recovery. Avoid matches design, looks correct, or works on mobile as acceptance criteria.
Synthetic example: Given autocomplete is unavailable, when the user enters an address manually and submits, then checkout continues without retrying or enabling the provider.
9. Produce the handoff package
For a complete input-to-output demonstration, read references/worked-example.md. Use it to calibrate behavior-first detail, flexible layout rules, states, and acceptance criteria; do not reuse its fictional system names or API assumptions.
Scope and dependencies
State included flows, platforms, feature flags, system versions, dependencies, and exclusions.
Flow contract
Provide transitions, branches, state retention, and recovery.
Screen and component specs
Use:
Purpose | System mapping | Anatomy | Content/data | Behavior | States | Responsive | Accessibility | Events
State matrix
Include ownership and required fixtures.
Acceptance criteria
Group by feature behavior, accessibility, responsiveness, data integrity, and resilience.
Open decisions
Use:
Question | Why it matters | Decision owner | Blocking? | Needed by
Design QA plan
Name environments, viewports, content fixtures, assistive technologies, browsers, and high-risk checks. Record deviations as defects, approved tradeoffs, or design changes.
Checkpoint: Trace every acceptance criterion back to approved evidence and forward to component, state, and QA coverage. Revise gaps, then repeat until each Quality-bar item passes or every unresolved decision has an owner and blocking status.
Quality bar
- critical flows expose branches and recovery, and mappings name system components and tokens;
- content ranges, consequential states, and responsive constraints define implementation behavior;
- accessibility semantics, focus behavior, QA coverage, and acceptance criteria are explicit and observable;
- unresolved decisions have owners and never masquerade as implementation detail.
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.

