flow-prototype
Skill1 starsChanged 46 days agoMITView on GitHub
Throwaway experiment that answers one technical or UX question. Use for spikes, proofs of concept or comparing visual alternatives before production work. Hands off to `flow-brainstorm` or `flow-plan`.
In this repository38 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- llms.txtllms.txt
- flow-a11ySkill
- flow-adversarial-reviewSkill
- flow-animateSkill
- flow-apiSkill
- flow-benchmarkSkill
- flow-brainstormSkill
- flow-commitSkill
- flow-data-migrateSkill
- flow-depsSkill
- flow-designSkill
- flow-diagnoseSkill
- flow-docsSkill
- flow-git-fixSkill
- flow-handoffSkill
- flow-migrateSkill
- flow-observeSkill
- flow-onboardSkill
- flow-orchestrateSkill
- flow-planSkill
- flow-pr-fixSkill
- flow-prune-agent-setupSkill
- flow-redesignSkill
- flow-refactorSkill
- flow-releaseSkill
- flow-repo-briefSkill
- flow-reviewSkill
- flow-shipSkill
- flow-simplifySkill
- flow-specializeSkill
- flow-stylesSkill
- flow-testSkill
- flow-triageSkill
- flow-uiSkill
- flow-verifySkill
- flow-workSkill
- flow-write-skillSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
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
- Distinctive: line 20
Run it. Record the startup command, representative inputs, and observed outcomes.
≈ “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
Prototype
Answer one question with a runnable artifact. Default to throwaway work, but let the user retain or promote useful code once its limits are assessed.
Process
- Define the question, hypothesis, observation, and stop condition. Budget effort in proportion to the uncertainty. Reuse the existing stack when it fits; no new framework for a small demo.
- Isolate the artifact from production navigation, data, and deployment. Use the user's directory or the repository's prototype convention. Do not change ignore rules automatically.
- Pick the shape:
- A terminal app or script for data flow, algorithms, protocols, and state machines.
- A visual route or demo for layout, motion, and interaction. Show a few meaningfully different alternatives side by side when comparison is the point.
- Build only the paths the answer needs, including validation and failure behavior where they affect it. Minimal does not mean crashing or empty handlers. No fixed file-count rule should block components the experiment needs.
- Run it. Record the startup command, representative inputs, and observed outcomes. Inspect visual prototypes in the browser, including interaction and final state; code reading does not confirm experience. Mark unavailable checks.
- Compare evidence to the hypothesis. State what it demonstrates and what it does not: mocked services, assumed data, missing operational behavior.
- Record disposition: keep, archive, discard, or promote. An explicit request to build on it overrides the throwaway default. For promotion, define production requirements and gaps through
flow-planinstead of an automatic rewrite.
Anti-patterns
- Building a whole product to answer a narrow uncertainty.
- Omitting error paths essential to the question.
- Presenting mocked success as proof of a real integration.
- Forcing the user to discard code they chose to retain.
Done when
- The artifact runs, and the question has an evidence-backed answer or a named limit.
- Someone else can reproduce the experiment.
- Location, limitations, and disposition are clear.
Return the answer to flow-brainstorm or use flow-plan for the production work the user requests.
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.

