agentleFS
jisuzzzzjisuzzzz/haechi/skills/screen-parity/SKILL.md

screen-parity

Skill17 starsChanged 14 days agoMITView on GitHub

Compare before and after screens against intended differences and a noise baseline. Use with a supplied before/after comparison brief and explicit source-edit and server boundaries.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈3

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Never edit source, commit, stash, checkout or reset.

    line 14
  2. Distinctive:

    Noise baseline: Run BEFORE twice, then AFTER once, back to back.

    line 26
  3. Distinctive:

    Do not widen masks or weaken the capture procedure to hide an AFTER difference.

    line 28
  4. Very specific:

    If the images cannot be opened or a required region is unreadable, return BLOCKED for that state and overall and report the partial checks.

    line 36

≈ “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

screen-parity

Apply the common work contract within this task’s scope. It owns applicable pre-action evidence, product implementation obligations and completion requirements; this skill supplies the method. Current common guidance already delivered or read may be reused.

Task boundary

You check that a change left the screen as it was, except for the differences the brief says are intended. The orchestrator owns the servers; you only use the URLs it gives you.

Never edit source, commit, stash, checkout or reset. Never start a dev server on a port the repo settings forbid. Run one browser process at a time per login session file.

Procedure

Inputs. BEFORE URL (server at the base revision), AFTER URL (server with the change), the screens and states to visit, the intended differences (empty for a pure refactor), and the login session file if needed. Missing or unreachable URL → BLOCKED with what is missing. A design-driven redesign → BLOCKED: wrong agent — use a worker with /haechi:screen-design.

Capture. Follow the tool-selection and export checks in the shared capture procedure. Prefer one throwaway script, in a temporary file you delete afterwards, that takes the base URL as a parameter and drives every state with the repository's browser test helpers (.haechi.json screenCheck.helpers) or Playwright directly. A connected browser tool can substitute only when it reproduces the same conditions and supplies every required capture, snapshot and log. Use an existing authorized login session; never type a password; never perform actions that write server data. Per state save a viewport screenshot (animations disabled, same viewport both sides), the accessibility snapshot of the relevant region, and console errors. Mask regions that change by themselves (relative times, clocks, spinners).

When the caller also needs document attachments, follow the shared capture and numbered-annotation procedure. Keep comparison images and masks separate from untouched evidence and numbered explanatory copies. A comparison with disabled animations is not evidence of motion or real-time behavior; record that separately only when needed. This does not change the BEFORE/AFTER input requirements.

Choose interaction checks relevant to the change, such as keyboard navigation and focus return or save-request failures, and run the same checks on both versions. Distinguish console errors, uncaught exceptions and unhandled rejections. Mark relevant states or interactions left unchecked; image comparison alone does not verify them.

Noise baseline. Run BEFORE twice, then AFTER once, back to back. The BEFORE-to-BEFORE difference is noise. If data changed between the two BEFORE runs, run again.

Do not widen masks or weaken the capture procedure to hide an AFTER difference. If the measurement setup needs correction, explain why and repeat the BEFORE captures as well as AFTER.

Compare.

  1. Open the original BEFORE and AFTER images for each checked state with an image-capable tool and visually compare corresponding regions, even when the pixel difference is small. Check concrete changes in clipping, overlap, wrapping, alignment, icons and readability against the intended differences. Saving screenshots or generating a report does not count as viewing them.
  2. Compare accessibility snapshots for structure, text, labels and states. Use pixel differences above the noise baseline and the opened diff image to locate or confirm changes. Neither a matching tree nor a low pixel count alone proves visual parity.
  3. Classify each difference as EXPECTED (an intended difference), UNEXPECTED (regression) or NOISE. An intended difference that does not appear is also a failure.
  4. Console errors present in AFTER but not BEFORE are findings.

If the images cannot be opened or a required region is unreadable, return BLOCKED for that state and overall and report the partial checks; do not return a visual PASS. Pure aesthetic preferences are open questions, not regressions.

Report. PASS, FAIL or BLOCKED; per state, differences by class with the viewed image pair, region and supporting snapshot lines or diff image path; intended differences confirmed or missing; new console errors; the noise level observed; relevant comparisons or interactions left unverified. Also write the results as one JSON file for screen-report.mjs (schema in its header comment): kind: "parity", task, verdict, states with images (BEFORE, AFTER, Diff) and classed items (intended differences as EXPECTED), consoleErrors, noise, openQuestions. A difference you cannot classify from the brief is an open question, not a FAIL.

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.