ux-validate
Skill4 starsChanged 5 days agoMITView on GitHub
Validate a designed or implemented UI/UX change with task-based usability checks, accessibility checks, keyboard/mobile flows, failure recovery, and explicit evidence. Use for verifying fixes and UI acceptance tests.
In this repository55 other files it gives its agents.
- design-balance-and-proportionSkill
- design-brand-and-art-directionSkill
- design-buildSkill
- design-color-theorySkill
- design-diagnoseSkill
- design-hierarchy-and-emphasisSkill
- design-imagery-and-textureSkill
- design-layout-and-gridSkill
- design-movement-and-flowSkill
- design-reviewSkill
- design-rhythm-and-patternSkill
- design-typographySkill
- design-unity-and-systemsSkill
- design-validateSkill
- security-api-files-and-realtimeSkill
- security-authentication-and-sessionsSkill
- security-authorizationSkill
- security-browser-and-originSkill
- security-buildSkill
- security-configuration-and-secretsSkill
- security-crypto-and-dataSkill
- security-dependencies-and-buildSkill
- security-diagnoseSkill
- security-injection-and-validationSkill
- security-logging-and-failureSkill
- security-reviewSkill
- security-threat-model-and-designSkill
- security-validateSkill
- ux-accessibilitySkill
- ux-buildSkill
- ux-controls-and-inputsSkill
- ux-decisions-and-loadSkill
- ux-diagnoseSkill
- ux-feedback-and-performanceSkill
- ux-forms-and-errorsSkill
- ux-journeys-and-motivationSkill
- ux-navigation-and-structureSkill
- ux-onboarding-and-learningSkill
- ux-reviewSkill
- ux-trust-and-ethicsSkill
- ux-visual-hierarchySkill
- wcag-alternatives-and-mediaSkill
- wcag-assistive-tech-and-statusSkill
- wcag-buildSkill
- wcag-diagnoseSkill
- wcag-forms-and-error-preventionSkill
- wcag-keyboard-and-focusSkill
- wcag-language-and-predictabilitySkill
- wcag-navigation-and-discoverySkill
- wcag-pointer-and-touchSkill
- wcag-reviewSkill
- wcag-semantics-and-reading-orderSkill
- wcag-time-and-motionSkill
- wcag-validateSkill
- wcag-visual-and-responsiveSkill
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
- Very specific: line 12
Use references/acceptance-matrix.md to select relevant executable/user-test cases.
- Distinctive: line 16
Start from explicit user goals and expected 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
Validate UI/UX changes
Scope
Assess the actual user outcome; snapshots and lint alone are insufficient.
Use references/acceptance-matrix.md to select relevant executable/user-test cases; do not mechanically run the entire matrix for a tiny change.
Procedure
- Start from explicit user goals and expected outcomes. Read prior issue IDs if available and translate each recommendation into an observable pass/fail case.
- Inspect runtime behavior when access exists: first use, common expert path, loading, empty/error, cancellation, back/forward, interrupted draft and final confirmation. Distinguish simulated tests from live evidence.
- Inspect accessibility systematically: keyboard-only, focus order and visibility, form labels/errors, correct name/role/state, screen reader when available, zoom and reflow, pointer targets, contrast and reduced motion. Use applicable WCAG 2.2 criteria, not psychology laws as legal standards.
- For a chosen UX law, design a disconfirming scenario: e.g. does reduced choice hide expert features? Does novelty impede expected interactions? Does optimistic feedback claim success before durable state?
- Record outcomes and the environment; identify regressions, risks and explicit remaining unknowns. Mark
verifiedonly for actual observed/tested success.
Useful measures: task completion, first correct action, error/recovery, mis-tap, decision time, findability, resume rate, comprehensibility and user trust. Measure before/after when feasible. Report tested | passed | failed | untested; never invent metrics.
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.