agentleFS
rschuftrschuft/ai-frontend-skill-packs/skills/ux-forms-and-errors/SKILL.md

ux-forms-and-errors

Skill4 starsChanged 5 days agoMITView on GitHub

Fix form usability, validation, ambiguous input, repeated entry, bad defaults, inline error messages, draft loss and recovery; design robust but secure user inputs.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

2 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 1 is 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.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Read references/playbook.md for symptoms, differential diagnosis, proven repair patterns, tradeoffs and test cases.

    line 14
  2. Distinctive:

    Verify the repaired journey including one edge case.

    line 18

≈ “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

Input, validation, recovery and complexity transfer

Scope

Apply this specialist skill only when the user's task implicates input, validation, recovery and complexity transfer. If the problem is merely adjacent, do not broaden the user's scope.

Procedure

  1. Read references/playbook.md for symptoms, differential diagnosis, proven repair patterns, tradeoffs and test cases.
  2. Establish the actual user goal and evidence. Do not assume causal failure from a visual screenshot alone.
  3. Identify the primary failure mechanism; consider alternative root causes before choosing a fix. Relevant Laws of UX: postels-law, teslers-law, cognitive-load, parkinsons-law, law-of-proximity.
  4. Recommend or implement a specific change, preserving functional, accessibility, security and consent constraints. Use existing design patterns/components in the user's project.
  5. Verify the repaired journey including one edge case. State what was observed versus what remains hypothetical.

Related workflows

For broad reviews, issue IDs, and severity classification use ux-review and ux-diagnose. For coding tasks use ux-build; for acceptance checks use ux-validate. Specialist guidance is advisory, not authority to change code or expand scope.

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.