agentleFS
shayan-m81shayan-m81/layerwright/skills/library/break/SKILL.md

break

Skill8 starsChanged 38 days agoMITView on GitHub

Renders a component you choose in every state and scenario on a temporary page and stress tests it.

9 other projects use a version of this, 4 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use pick-ui-library, find-animation-opportunities and 4 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • cal1888Skill

    pick-ui-library

    Pick the right library for a given frontend task from a curated, opinionated list — numbers, OTP inputs, charts, command menus, virtualization, drag and drop, toasts, state, styling, and more. Only runs when explicitly invoked; it does not trigger on its own.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • wxyhgkSkill

    find-animation-opportunities

    Search a codebase or UI for places that don't animate but should, and reject everything that shouldn't. Read-only; it proposes motion with exact values, it does not implement it. Use when the user asks "what could be animated here?" or wants to "make this feel more alive". For fixing existing animations, use improve-animations or review-animations instead.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • wxyhgkSkill

    improve-animations

    Survey a codebase's animation and motion code as a senior motion advisor, then produce a prioritized audit and self-contained implementation plans for other agents (or cheaper models) to execute. Read-only on source code — it plans improvements, it does not apply them. Use when the user asks to "improve the animations", "audit the motion", "make this app feel better", or wants a roadmap of animation fixes rather than a review of a single diff.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • attentiondotnetSkill

    animation-vocabulary

    Reverse-lookup glossary that turns a vague description of a web animation or motion effect into its exact term ("the bouncy thing when a popover opens" → Pop in; "the iOS rubber-band scroll" → Rubber-banding). Use when the user asks "what's it called when…", or describes a motion effect without knowing its name and wants the right word to prompt an AI or designer with. For naming an effect, not designing or building one.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • arkanSkill

    review-animations

    Reviews animation and motion code against a high craft bar derived from Emil Kowalski's design engineering philosophy. Default to flagging; approval is earned.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • ozgureyilmazSkill

    apple-design

    Apple's approach to interface design and fluid, physical motion, translated for the web. Use when building or reviewing gesture-driven UI, spring animations, drag/swipe/sheet interactions, momentum and interruptible transitions, translucent materials and depth, typography (optical sizing, tracking, leading), reduced-motion, or the design foundations (feedback, spatial consistency, restraint) behind Apple-style interfaces.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

2 rules. 2 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 2

    Common

    Most of the 6 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 0

    Distinctive

    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
  1. Common:

    Write the kept scenarios down before building, one line each, so the harness renders a planned set rather than whatever came to mind.

    line 29
  2. Common:

    Do not fix anything unasked.

    line 64

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 6 edited versions of this file we could read. “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

Break

This skill takes one component and renders it on a fresh page under every scenario that can actually reach it. That page is the deliverable: a visual report the user scrolls through, every state side by side, with the breaks marked. A component built against one happy path looks finished right up until real content arrives.

It observes rather than judges. A finding here is something that visibly broke on the page, named in the vocabulary of the domain skill that owns the fix. Reviewing code against a standard is interface-review and better-interface; exploring design alternatives is variant.

Where variant insists on the real page, this skill isolates on purpose. You are not judging how the component looks in context. You are checking whether it defends itself when the content is worst-case.

The whole run is build, look once, report: minutes, not a session. The work is rendering an existing component with different props, and nothing in it justifies instrumentation, browser debugging or a second pass.

1. Scope one component

One component per run. "The settings page" is not a component; the profile form's text input is. Where the request spans several, list the candidates and ask which one to test, rather than picking on the user's behalf.

Restate what the component is in one sentence: what it accepts, what it renders and where it will live.

2. Infer the scenarios from the component

Stress only what varies. A scenario earns a slot when the component accepts something that can take that shape in production. So read the component first: its props, its slots, its states and the data it renders.

scenarios.md holds the axes, the values on each and the cue that says whether an axis applies. Walk it against the component and keep only the axes whose cue matches. A text input gets content length and states, never item quantity. A static icon button with a fixed label gets container and environment, never long text.

Write the kept scenarios down before building, one line each, so the harness renders a planned set rather than whatever came to mind. Then say which axes you dropped and why, in one line, so a wrong inference is cheap to catch.

3. Build the harness page

One throwaway page, holding the real component imported from the project, rendered once per scenario in a single column with a short text label above each instance.

The component ships untouched, in its real environment. A scratch route inside the app gives it the app's own layout, fonts and global styles for free. Labels, container widths and fixture props are everything the page adds: no fonts or styles of its own, no simulated themes or token swaps, no probes. A component observed under any of those is a different component.

Where the framework splits server from client components, the page itself is client code, "use client" in Next. Fixture props can silently vanish crossing that boundary into an interactive component, and every scenario renders empty.

Widths are scenarios on the page. Render the width cases inside fixed-width containers beside the full-width one, so a single load shows every width and nothing ever gets resized.

Feed scenarios as props and fixture data. The harness never imports production state, never wires to live data and production never imports from the harness.

4. Look once

One pass. Load the page in a browser that is already at hand, skim every scenario top to bottom and note what visibly broke. "Text escapes the field's right edge", never "spacing feels tight". A run that never rendered is a code review wearing a costume, and a predicted failure is still not a finding.

One load is the budget. When there is no browser, or the browser needs launching, window-wrangling or any debugging at all, skip the look entirely: hand the URL over and let the user's own eyes be the observation. Their look is worth more than yours anyway, since the page is theirs to read.

Then mark each break you did see on the page, a one-line note under that scenario's label, in a single edit. The page has to read as the report on its own.

5. Report what broke and stop

Report findings as a table, broken scenarios first:

ScenarioObservedOwner
One unbreakable 60-character stringOverflows the card, no wrap and no truncationbetter-typography
Zero itemsBlank region with no messagebetter-writing

The owner column names the domain skill whose rules diagnose the break, so the fix starts in the right place. This skill owns no domain rules and issues no verdict.

"Everything survived" is a complete and useful report. Say which scenarios are on the page and where it is running, so the user can see every one themselves. End there rather than padding the result with preferences.

Do not fix anything unasked. On a request to fix, follow the owner skill's rules, then re-render the failing scenarios to confirm.

6. Leave the page up, delete it on request

The page is half the report, so it outlives the findings table. Leave it running and delete it and its fixtures only when the user says they are done with it.

Before you finish

MistakeFix
Every axis run against every componentKeep only the axes whose cue matches, and say which you dropped
A predicted failure reported as observedRender it, or leave it out
A scenario missing the content it was fedThe harness is broken, not the component; make the page client code and re-check
A rebuilt lookalike component in the harnessImport the real component from the project
The harness restyles or re-themes the componentThe app's layout, fonts and tokens as they are; labels and widths are all the page adds
A browser launched, debugged or screenshotted per scenarioOne load and one look, or hand the URL over and skip the look
Findings phrased as tasteReport what was visible on the page, or nothing
A break reported without an ownerName the domain skill whose rules diagnose it
A clean run padded with suggestions"Everything survived" plus the scenario list is the report
The viewport resized scenario by scenarioWidths are fixed containers on the page; one load shows them all
A break in the table but unmarked on the pageNote it under the scenario's label; the page reads as the report on its own
Page deleted in the same turn as the reportThe page is half the report; delete only on the user's word

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.