prototyper
Skill3 starsChanged 41 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when you need to build a usable proof of concept of the main user flows, with interactive mocks for supporting services, observable acceptance checks and a focused MVP handoff.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- amrtaher1234/skillstheir own version, first seen Jul 8, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- amrtaher1234/skills★ 7same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository12 other files it gives its agents.
- agent-insightsSkill
- agent-visual-verificationSkill
- anonymizerSkill
- consumer-billing-refundsSkill
- food-delivery-dealsSkill
- hotel-huntingSkill
- local-recurring-activity-planningSkill
- music-practice-space-findingSkill
- music-videoSkill
- ui-capitalizationSkill
- ux-ui-iaSkill
- visual-explanationSkill
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
- Distinctive: line 29
Read mindset to identify the user, situation, current workaround and risky assumption.
- Distinctive: line 37
Read build-loop before implementation.
- Very specific: line 39
Write scoped PRD.md, a fixed BAR.md with observable criterion IDs, and small PLAN.md tasks with proof requirements.
- Distinctive: line 57
Use evidence to separate verified behaviour, observed user feedback, reported feedback and assumptions.
≈ “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
Prototyper
Help the client create something a user can try and a team can continue. Keep their chosen stack, scope and visual direction. Match the artifact to your tools: runnable prototype, interactive preview, or a labelled simulation and build brief. Do not stop at planning when you can build the requested artifact.
Deliver day-one use
Choose the first useful outcome the client can complete: book a slot, prepare a quote, review an invoice or finish another concrete task. Ask enough to identify the user, outcome and constraints, then build a first working route. Offer the resumable survey when it helps; do not require the client to finish it before you can start. Record reversible assumptions and revisit them after trying the artifact.
Give the client a verified way to open the prototype, a sample task and a visible result. Explain what persists, what resets and which actions use live services or simulations. Prefer a local or browser-only route when it meets the task without account setup. Use a manual step when it provides a usable outcome within scope, and include that step in the instructions. Show the first working route before expanding scope or adding tooling.
Mock supporting services
Build the main user flows through to observable results. Default to mocks for supporting services unless the client requests a live integration or the risky assumption depends on that integration. A checkout can simulate approval, decline and retry without Stripe. An email flow can show a message preview or local outbox without sending mail. Let the user interact with these states; a dead button does not demonstrate the flow.
Label simulated effects where the user encounters them: no charge, no email sent, sample account or local-only save. A PoC can meet its acceptance bar with these mocks. For an MVP launch, identify which dependencies must become real to deliver the promised user outcome and which can remain simulated or manual. Record the remaining integration work without expanding the current prototype into a full product.
Define the task
Read mindset to identify the user, situation, current workaround and risky assumption. Ask only for information that changes the prototype. Accept free text, reconsider after each answer and surface contradictions. Follow the client's request to proceed with reversible assumptions when appropriate.
For a resumable survey, read local discovery and run scripts/discovery.py from the client project. It saves answers in local SQLite and exports JSON, PRD.md and BAR.md. It uses no AI provider or remote database. A chat-only agent can perform discovery in conversation. PLEA remains an optional requirements interview; this survey adapts its discovery principles rather than claiming to run that plugin.
Write one direction: for this user in this situation, help them finish this task; test this assumption. Agree the small set of main flows needed for that task, and name exclusions. Map each flow as role → action → observable result. Build one end-to-end route as the first increment, then include the agreed supporting flows before accepting the PoC. Use scope, including its worked example when useful. A prototype can test understanding and behaviour; it cannot establish demand or production reliability by itself.
Build through the quality loop
Read build-loop before implementation. Keep it central to the work:
- Write scoped
PRD.md, a fixedBAR.mdwith observable criterion IDs, and smallPLAN.mdtasks with proof requirements. - Build and exercise the critical task with synthetic data and relevant failure/recovery. Label live, local and simulated operations. Prove the test harness changes state.
- Render and inspect after a material UI change. Use design for typography, Google Fonts, accessible states and mobile behaviour. Check motion through interaction or video when a still cannot establish the criterion.
- When a meaningful comparator exists, show matched reference/previous and current artifacts under neutral A/B labels to a separate critic. Give the authorized critic the actual artifact, task and bar without builder history. Otherwise inspect directly against the bar and record the comparison limit. For nonvisual solutions, inspect actual outputs and task execution.
- Record
VERDICT, the largestGAPand concreteEVIDENCE. Repair that gap and rerun affected checks against the same bar. Keep failed and untested criteria visible.
Continue until required criteria pass, the client stops, or an explicit budget ends. Do not impose a fixed round count or call an unfinished result accepted. Stop on a quota/rate-limit error or three attempts at the same tool failure. Label self-review when a separate critic is unavailable and mark checks untested when you cannot execute them. An agent's A/B preference is a heuristic comparison, not a participant experiment.
Show progress to the client
Use the progress board when the client wants a view of development. It runs locally and shows outcome cards in Planned, Building, Ready to try and Done, with child boards, breadcrumbs and highlighted feedback requests. Keep card statuses aligned with PLAN.md and verified evidence. Read client answers before advancing dependent work; retain open questions and failed checks. Use the bundled board to start without accounts or hosting.
Run the bundled evals
Read evals. Run the bundled behaviour checks after changing discovery or progress-board code. Check the rendered board with its browser eval when you change UI behaviour. Keep synthetic evaluation projects separate from client data, retain failed evidence and mark unavailable browser checks untested. A passing helper-tool eval does not prove the client's prototype meets its own BAR.md.
Leave a usable handoff
Use evidence to separate verified behaviour, observed user feedback, reported feedback and assumptions. Use handoff for run instructions, screens/states, data boundaries, decisions, cuts and the next team's work. State “No user feedback collected” when true.
Load optional extensions only when DAUB, Harn, PLEA, Slag, skills.sh or specialist design guidance fits the task. Reuse available skills before installing more. Do not start paid services, change global configuration, publish externally or contact participants solely because this skill mentions those options. Keep discovery data on the client's computer until they choose to share it.
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.

