frontend-form-interactions
Skill1 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Design and verify forms, validation, search, filters, settings, uploads, checkout, onboarding, destructive actions, and multi-step data-entry workflows with preserved input and recoverable async behavior. Use this skill when frontend work collects, validates, or submits user data.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- paulasilvatech/awesome-copilot-adventuresword for word, first seen Sep 5, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- paulasilvatech/awesome-copilot-adventures★ 1100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
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 repository13 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- canvas-designSkill
- evidence-firstSkill
- frontend-dashboard-visualizationSkill
- frontend-experience-coreSkill
- frontend-mobile-desktop-testingSkill
- frontend-requirements-and-storiesSkill
- frontend-visual-e2e-testingSkill
- frontend-visual-systemSkill
- ms-presentation-deckSkill
- official-docsSkill
- web-design-reviewerSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. About 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈6
Distinctive · estimate
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
- Distinctive: line 54
Test international names and addresses, locale-specific numbers, long text, paste, autofill, uploads, expiry, network failure, and retry …
- Distinctive: line 56
Use assets/complex-data-entry-review.md and assets/human-review-checklist.md.
- Distinctive: line 60
Do not invent validation, data retention, security, compliance, or idempotency rules.
- Distinctive: line 61
Do not clear input after a recoverable error.
- Distinctive: line 62
Do not disable paste or password managers by default.
- Distinctive: line 63
Do not make a custom date picker, combobox, editor, drag control, or signature pad without accessible keyboard and fallback behavior.
≈ “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
Frontend form interactions
Make data entry understandable, efficient, accessible, and recoverable across client validation, server validation, authentication, network failures, and device constraints.
When to invoke
- "Design a complex form with validation and recovery."
- "Implement onboarding, checkout, search filters, or settings."
- "Map server errors to fields without losing user input."
- "Review an upload or multi-step workflow."
- "Test autofill, mobile keyboards, duplicate submission, and retries."
Input contract
For each field or action, record:
- purpose and why sensitive information is requested;
- visible label, instructions, examples, format, required status, and access;
- native input type, autocomplete token, input mode, and password-manager behavior;
- client and server validation timing, error shape, and cross-field rules;
- persistence, draft, back navigation, cancellation, and retry behavior;
- submitted data, idempotency, progress, confirmation, and destructive consequences.
Read references/data-entry-patterns.md.
Validation and errors
Read references/validation-and-errors.md.
- Validate at a useful time without error noise before the user can respond.
- Link field errors programmatically and add a summary for complex workflows.
- Map known server validation safely to fields while retaining a workflow-level message for unknown or cross-field failures.
- Preserve input and state after recoverable failure.
- Distinguish invalid, unauthorized, forbidden, conflict, rate limit, timeout, unavailable, offline, and unexpected errors.
Async submission
Read references/async-submission.md.
Prevent accidental duplicates while communicating pending, progress, cancellation, retry, rollback, and confirmation. Use idempotency or conflict behavior defined by the backend contract; do not invent it.
Criteria
- Visible labels remain present; placeholders are hints only.
- Native controls and semantics are preferred before custom widgets.
- Password paste, managers, and autofill remain enabled unless an approved security requirement says otherwise.
- Multi-step flows expose progress, saved state, safe backward navigation, and interruption behavior.
- Mobile virtual keyboards, viewport changes, safe areas, and touch targets do not hide active fields or actions.
- Test international names and addresses, locale-specific numbers, long text, paste, autofill, uploads, expiry, network failure, and retry where applicable.
Use assets/complex-data-entry-review.md and assets/human-review-checklist.md.
Limits
- Do not invent validation, data retention, security, compliance, or idempotency rules.
- Do not clear input after a recoverable error.
- Do not disable paste or password managers by default.
- Do not make a custom date picker, combobox, editor, drag control, or signature pad without accessible keyboard and fallback behavior.
Output template
## Form interaction result
**Status:** ready | needs revision | blocked
### Field and action contract
| Field/action | Purpose | Input semantics | Validation | Persistence/recovery |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
### State map
| State | Trigger | Visible behavior | Focus/announcement | Recovery |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
### Validation evidence
- <automated or manual check>Quality gate
- Labels, instructions, input purpose, native semantics, and access requirements are explicit.
- Client, server, cross-field, unknown, and workflow errors have defined behavior.
- Input, draft, progress, backward navigation, cancellation, retry, and duplicate-submission behavior is preserved when applicable.
- Autofill, paste, password managers, localization, mobile keyboards, uploads, and long content are covered by risk.
- Focus, announcements, summaries, and custom-widget keyboard behavior are defined.
- The human review checklist has no unresolved blocked item.
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.

