agentleFS
aradmanamnaoonaradmanamnaoon/vibe-coding-skills/skills/frontend/responsive-design-auditor/SKILL.md

responsive-design-auditor

Skill0 starsChanged 19 days agoMITView on GitHub

Verify changed UI across representative viewport widths for overflow, clipping, reflow, navigation, touch targets, and content priority. Use for frontend layout changes.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

7 rules. About 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈7

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Read applicable repository instructions before edits.

    line 20
  2. Distinctive:

    Verify interactive targets remain reachable and appropriately sized without hover-only behavior.

    line 34
  3. Distinctive:

    Test text zoom/reflow where relevant to the changed component.

    line 35
  4. Distinctive:

    Prefer intrinsic/flexible layout fixes over adding one-off breakpoint patches.

    line 36
  5. Distinctive:

    Do not hide required content/actions at small widths merely to remove overflow.

    line 46
  6. Distinctive:

    No unintended horizontal scroll/clipping occurs in changed flows.

    line 50
  7. Distinctive:

    If browser automation is unavailable, inspect CSS/layout constraints and mark actual viewport execution pending.

    line 63

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Purpose

Catch desktop-only layouts and breakpoint regressions with observable viewport checks.

When to activate

Layout/navigation/component changes can respond to viewport size.

When not to activate

Backend-only change or a non-layout style token change is fully covered by existing visual tests.

Preconditions

  • Read applicable repository instructions before edits.
  • Preserve unrelated working-tree changes and establish a baseline when the workflow can modify code.
  • Identify which tools and environments are actually available; do not claim unavailable checks ran.

Required inputs

  • Runnable UI
  • Critical routes/components
  • Supported target widths/devices

Workflow

  1. Choose representative narrow, medium, and wide widths from product breakpoints or common constraints rather than testing dozens of devices.
  2. At each width, inspect horizontal overflow, clipped content, overlapping controls, fixed/sticky elements, long text, tables/media, dialogs, and navigation.
  3. Verify interactive targets remain reachable and appropriately sized without hover-only behavior.
  4. Test text zoom/reflow where relevant to the changed component.
  5. Prefer intrinsic/flexible layout fixes over adding one-off breakpoint patches.
  6. Repeat the critical interaction at the narrowest supported width.
  7. Record browser-specific checks separately from responsive checks.

Relevant tools

Browser/Playwright or equivalent, devtools layout metrics, screenshots as supplemental evidence.

Safety restrictions

Do not hide required content/actions at small widths merely to remove overflow.

Validation

  • No unintended horizontal scroll/clipping occurs in changed flows.
  • Critical actions remain visible/reachable at representative widths.
  • The narrowest flow completes successfully.

Expected output

  • Viewport matrix
  • Layout/interactivity findings
  • Fix rationale
  • Browser evidence

Failure handling

If browser automation is unavailable, inspect CSS/layout constraints and mark actual viewport execution pending.

Completion criteria

The skill is complete only when every applicable validation item above has observed evidence or is explicitly marked not executed with the concrete blocker. Do not replace missing evidence with confidence language.

Research mapping

This skill was selected from research problems: P036. See research/vibe-coding-problems.md and research/problem-evidence.csv in the Vibe Coding Skills repository.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.