legacy-webview-analysis
Skill3 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when: analyzing Objective-C WebView legacy flows, fallback behavior, and bridge contracts before implementing changes. Read-only: produces a behavior map and a safe patch checklist, never code edits.
In this repository6 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- concise-outputSkill
- legacy-webview-implementationSkill
- update-apple-webview-landscapeSkill
- webview-legacy-referenceSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈5
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 10
Use this skill to understand and document the real runtime behavior of the project before changing code.
- Distinctive: line 41
Always cite concrete files/symbols
- Distinctive: line 42
Every technical claim must be verifiable in files read during this analysis
- Very specific: line 43
If the information does not exist in the code, write not found — do not fill gaps with assumptions
- Distinctive: line 44
No rewrite proposals by default
- Distinctive: line 45
No implementation in analysis-only tasks
≈ “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
Legacy WebView Analysis
Purpose
Use this skill to understand and document the real runtime behavior of the project before changing code.
Required Output
- Objective and scope
- What the app demonstrates according to README and code
- Which flow is being analyzed (WK, UI fallback, bridge, sharing)
- Runtime map
- Entry controller(s)
- Delegate chain
- Navigation/load lifecycle
- Observer interactions
- Bridge contract map
- Handler registration points
- Handler call points
- Queue protocol and JS bridge file coupling
- Risk points
- Crash risks (KVO/delegate lifecycle)
- Behavioral regressions (redirect/share/forward)
- Backward compatibility risks
- Safe patch checklist
- Minimal file touch set
- Verification strategy
- Rollback considerations
Rules
- Always cite concrete files/symbols
- Every technical claim must be verifiable in files read during this analysis
- If the information does not exist in the code, write
not found— do not fill gaps with assumptions - No rewrite proposals by default
- No implementation in analysis-only tasks
Anti-example (do not produce)
"The bridge probably uses evaluateJavaScript under the hood, so the change should be safe."
Speculation without a citation. Either point to the exact call site in WKWebViewJavascriptBridge.m or write not found.
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.