motion-resilience
Skill2 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Test and repair animated interactions under interruption, reversal, repeated input, lifecycle changes, and reduced motion. Use for motion-related state or responsiveness defects, not adding decorative animation.
In this repository18 other files it gives its agents.
- check-my-analysisSkill
- clean-handoffSkill
- clean-upSkill
- decision-coachSkill
- design-system-fitSkill
- feedback-to-findingsSkill
- form-flow-fixerSkill
- gameplanSkill
- knowledge-interviewSkill
- measure-successSkill
- meeting-briefSkill
- practice-coachSkill
- proposal-reviewerSkill
- reconcile-reportsSkill
- research-briefSkill
- simplify-reportSkill
- ui-state-completenessSkill
- ui-stress-testSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
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
- Very specific: line 14
Use assets/interruption-cases.json to select applicable sequences.
- Distinctive: line 20
Test reduced motion through an actual media preference when available.
- Distinctive: line 22
Use representative input devices and runtime conditions only when available.
≈ “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
Motion resilience
Make the interaction remain correct while motion is incomplete or absent. Preserve purposeful motion and the project's existing mechanism; do not judge quality through universal duration or easing rules.
Establish behavior
Identify the trigger, authoritative state, intended destination, animated properties, focus behavior, and cleanup lifecycle. Determine whether animation completion improperly controls business state, input availability, or removal. Note any deliberate input policy before treating repeated activation as a bug.
Use assets/interruption-cases.json to select applicable sequences. Exercise them with existing browser/test tools and isolated data. Use animation lifecycle hooks or controlled clocks for reproducible tests where supported; real-time pointer interactions remain useful for perceived responsiveness.
Interrupt deliberately
Reverse an action before completion, activate it repeatedly, close or navigate during motion, and reopen when relevant. Observe whether the newest supported intent wins, stale callbacks run, overlays intercept input, focus is lost, or detached elements leave work behind.
Test reduced motion through an actual media preference when available. Verify that state changes, cleanup, and feedback still work when motion is shortened or removed. A zero-duration transition may not emit the event the implementation expects; test the actual lifecycle rather than assuming equivalence.
Use representative input devices and runtime conditions only when available. Do not claim touch testing from mouse clicks or real-device performance from a desktop screenshot. Profile if performance is the reported defect; visual smoothness alone is not a frame-time measurement.
Fix and recheck
Report findings for review requests; apply scoped repairs when authorized. Prefer interruption-safe behavior, explicit cleanup, and state independent of decorative completion. Preserve meaningful focus entry/restoration and prevent hidden exiting elements from blocking input when appropriate.
Re-run the original sequence, normal completion, the reverse direction, and reduced motion. Add focused regression coverage for a reproduced race or lifecycle defect using the existing stack. Avoid a new animation library when a small correction suffices.
Report event order, timing relative to the transition, final state, focus/input behavior, and limitations. Keep static concerns separate from reproduced failures, and do not manufacture motion defects merely because a style differs from a reference.
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.

