handoff-spec
Skill0 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when turning a design (Figma link/description, screenshot, or rough sketch) into a structured developer handoff spec — props/API, states, tokens, responsive behavior. Triggers on requests like "write a handoff spec for this component", "spec this out for engineering", "turn this design into dev-ready documentation".
10 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- dzhng/jevgreptheir own version, first seen Nov 7, 2026
- dzhng/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 4, 2026
- Buddhilive/buddhi-clitheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- dzhng/duet-agenttheir own version, first seen Oct 30, 2026
- dzhng/yaptheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
- cskwork/handoff-spec-kittheir own version, first seen Sep 7, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use close-spec, design-with-images and 10 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
dzhngSkillclose-spec
When a spec under specs/<feature>/ is done shipping (a write-spec build, or any planned task that produced a spec), archive it to specs/done/ and rewrite it from a build-plan into a durable rationale — the why, the principles, the invariants — pointing back to the real code for the how. Use when implementation has landed and the plan no longer matches what shipped, or the user says a feature/spec is finished. Pairs with [write-spec](../write-spec/SKILL.md) (the plan this closes) and [review](../review/SKILL.md) (run before closing).
Also in 5 projects that use this
- dzhngSkill
design-with-images
Explore UI and visual design with image generation, then iterate the real implementation against the user-selected concept. Use when brainstorming visual directions, offering mockup variants, or implementing an approved generated design; do not stop at the mockups or the first code approximation.
Also in 5 projects that use this
transitive-bullshitSkillcompare-screenshots
Compare screenshots against the intended design, distinguishing approved references from historical baselines. Use for iterative implementation matching, before/after visual review, objective image telemetry, or checking a lone capture for flat, empty, or badly framed content.
Also in 5 projects that use this
LucasMatuszewskiSkillaudit-agents
Audit and maintain agent configuration files (.claude/agents, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, agent-memory). Checks for duplicates, outdated info, naming conflicts, wrong technical facts, and files over 200 lines. Fixes all issues and commits.
Also in 5 projects that use this
wolverin0Skillaudit-decisions
Standardize remediation decisions, baseline-policy entries, and legal-review banners for accepted, deferred, or policy-blocked audit findings.
Also in 4 projects that use this
rhnfzlSkillexplore-unknowns
Walk the user through mapping the unknowns of a task before, during, and after they build it, and hand them a four-quadrant map (settled ground, open decisions, taste, and landmines) they keep. Reach for this eagerly whenever a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the codebase or domain is unfamiliar, the user will "know it when they see it", a reference implementation must be understood before porting, a build-queue or architecture-changing task is about to start, a mid-build deviation needs capturing, or a finished change needs buy-in or verified understanding before merge. Trigger even when the skill is not named: "do a blindspot pass", "find my unknown unknowns", "interview me about this change", "brainstorm the approach for a task I am about to build", "help me scope this", "what am I missing here", "plan this before I build", "I know nothing about X in this codebase". When a territory profile is present it reads memory and the graph first and feeds the map into the build pipeline; without one it degrades to a plain general map. Not for trivial or mechanical tasks with clear acceptance criteria, single-fact lookups, pure debugging of a known symptom, or pure code review, those have their own tools. Do not use it to run the build itself; the map is the deliverable and implementation remains a separate task, whether it has not started or is already underway.
Also in 5 projects that use this
- +6 more from dzhng
Other versions10 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 10
- dzhng/jevgrep★ 3.2ksame name
- dzhng/skills★ 1.5ksame name
- dzhng/yap★ 112same name
- dzhng/duet-agent★ 55same name
- launchapp-dev/animus-cli★ 39same name
- sidneyswift/skills★ 9same name
- Buddhilive/buddhi-cli★ 1same name
- cskwork/handoff-spec-kit★ 1same name
- miovrag/claude-skills★ 1same name
- tjrice42/design-judgment-skills★ 0same name
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 repository2 other files it gives its agents.
- a11y-reviewSkill
- design-system-auditSkill
The file
Files
Design-to-dev handoff spec
Produce a structured spec an engineer can implement from without asking clarifying questions. If the source design is ambiguous on a point below, ask rather than guessing — a wrong guess here becomes a wrong component.
Spec structure
- Component name & purpose — one line.
- Anatomy — the named parts (e.g. "icon slot, label, trailing chevron") and which are optional.
- Props / API — name, type, default, description. Reuse existing design-system naming conventions for
variant/size/staterather than inventing new ones — check [[design-system-audit]] conventions if this codebase has an existing component library. - States — default, hover, focus, active, disabled, loading, error — only the ones that actually apply. For each, note what visually changes (which token/style, not just "looks different").
- Tokens used — the actual design tokens (color, spacing, radius, typography) referenced, not raw values. Flag anything that doesn't map to an existing token as a new-token request.
- Responsive / adaptive behavior — breakpoints where layout or sizing changes, if any.
- Accessibility notes — semantic element, required ARIA, keyboard behavior. Hand off to the
a11y-reviewskill for a full pass if this is a net-new interactive pattern. - Content/copy rules — truncation, max length, pluralization, empty states.
Output format
Markdown, one section per heading above. Skip sections that don't apply rather than padding them out.
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.