layers-interaction-flow
Skill307 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
Techniques for mapping interaction structure and flow — places, affordances, edge cases, and failure paths — without committing to visual form
3 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- davidanthonyn/claude-skillsedited, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- pengGgxp/skillsword for word, first seen Oct 11, 2026
- miovrag/claude-skillsword for word, first seen Jun 12, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 2
- miovrag/claude-skills★ 1100% same
- pengGgxp/skills★ 1100% same
Edited · 1
- davidanthonyn/claude-skills★ 017% 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 repository8 other files it gives its agents.
- layers-conceptual-modelSkill
- layers-domainSkill
- layers-introSkill
- layers-observed-behaviourSkill
- layers-orientSkill
- layers-product-strategySkill
- layers-surfaceSkill
- layers-user-needsSkill
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 24
If the conceptual model beneath isn't stable, flows built on it often need redoing — check that first.
≈ “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
/layers-interaction-flow
Assumes /layers-intro has been loaded. This skill is a library of techniques, not a script — see "How to use these skills" there.
The interaction structure and flow layer defines how a person interacts with the product: the places they navigate, the affordances available, the content presented, and the flow between states. It sits above the conceptual model (which defines what exists) and below the surface (which defines how it looks).
A breadboard is always for a particular user in a particular situation doing a particular job. Know which job story before you start.
The decisions this layer makes
- The distinct places this flow moves through
- What the user can do in each place, and where each action leads
- What content each place needs to show
- What happens on failure paths, empty states, and edge cases
- Whether the flow is as simple as it can be while still serving the job
If the conceptual model beneath isn't stable, flows built on it often need redoing — check that first.
Disciplines — what keeps a flow honest
- Every affordance has a named destination. "Submit → where?" If you can't name it, it's an unmade decision.
- Edges are required steps, not afterthoughts. Breadboard the failure paths (validation, server error, disconnection, timeout, concurrent edit), the empty and loading states, the post-action state, and the cancel path. Each gap is an unmade design decision — name it.
- No broken objects. For each conceptual-model object in this flow, its attributes and actions should be available together — not scattered across screens with no cross-linking.
- No isolated objects. Each model relationship should be visible and navigable in the flow, or there should be a deliberate decision that it needn't be.
- Vocabulary matches the model's ubiquitous language.
- Naming places is a design decision — descriptive and user-meaningful ("Referral dashboard", not "Page 3").
- Keep it minimal. More than 5–6 places for a single job story is a signal to look for what can be collapsed.
Breadboard notation
Place name
- affordance → destination place
- affordance → destination place
[ content shown in this place ]Techniques
Breadboarding is the default; the rest serve particular situations.
| Technique | Use it when |
| Breadboarding (Ryan Singer / Shape Up) | Default. Text notation that forces interaction logic to be settled before visual design makes changes expensive. |
| Walk the flow as the user | Narrate: "I'm a user who [situation]. I arrive at [place], I see [content], I want to [motivation], so I [affordance]…" Walk the happy path, then every edge. The fastest way to find unmade decisions. |
| User story mapping (Jeff Patton) | Complex product, many user types, incremental planning. Activities → tasks → stories across a timeline. |
| Task analysis | Redesigning an existing flow — decompose the current task to find where friction, errors, and workarounds concentrate. |
| Service blueprinting | Flow spans channels or involves backstage operations (staff, systems, third parties). |
| Critical User Journeys | Deciding which flow to work on — the minimal path to core value (high-traffic, high-revenue, metric-critical). |
Flow diagram (graph LR) | Orientation only — flow through time reads left to right. The text breadboard stays the primary artefact; the diagram loses conditional detail. |
Working with the designer
Settle which job story the flow serves, where the user starts, and what success looks like. If redesigning, describe the current flow first — it reveals decisions already made, many of them unintentionally. Then name the places, map affordances and destinations, and walk the flow including its edges, applying the disciplines above. Conditions — when an affordance is or isn't available — are often where the real decisions hide.
Offer the technique that fits: breadboarding for most flows, task analysis for a redesign, story mapping when there's a lot to plan. Do the next useful thing, not all of them.
Capture only the residue: the breadboard (places, affordances, destinations, content, key conditional states), a flow diagram if it aids orientation, the open decisions (gaps and unresolved edge cases), and risks that depend on unsettled lower-layer decisions.
A breadboard defines interaction logic without committing to visual form. Before moving to surface, make sure the conceptual model beneath is stable.
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.

