agentleFS
workshop-gbbworkshop-gbb/awesome-copilot-adventures/.github/skills/frontend-mobile-desktop-testing/SKILL.md

frontend-mobile-desktop-testing

Skill1 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub

Plan and verify mobile and desktop frontend behavior across React Native, Expo, Flutter, SwiftUI, Compose, Electron, Tauri, simulators, emulators, devices, lifecycle, gestures, windows, shortcuts, IPC, offline, and native accessibility. Use this skill when a non-browser surface requires runtime evidence.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

7 rules. About 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 1 is 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.

  • 1

    Very specific

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

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

    Read references/device-matrix.md before selecting coverage.

    line 22
  2. Distinctive:

    Use the repository's established Maestro, Detox, Appium, XCTest, XCUITest, JUnit, Compose UI, Espresso, Flutter, Playwright, or WebdriverIO …

    line 40
  3. Distinctive:

    Treat platform credentials and device-farm uploads as explicit operational boundaries.

    line 41
  4. Distinctive:

    Do not install a device runner, simulator, SDK, or paid service implicitly.

    line 45
  5. Distinctive:

    Do not claim native iOS or Android implementation capability without a representative pilot.

    line 46
  6. Distinctive:

    Do not treat web DOM or a desktop renderer test as proof of native shell, IPC, packaging, or OS behavior.

    line 47
  7. Distinctive:

    Do not capture real notifications, contacts, files, photos, accounts, or personal data in fixtures or evidence.

    line 48

≈ “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

Frontend mobile and desktop testing

Select platform-appropriate evidence for native, hybrid, and desktop-shell experiences without pretending browser tests prove device or operating-system behavior.

When to invoke

  • "Create a device test matrix for this mobile app."
  • "Validate React Native, Expo, Flutter, SwiftUI, or Compose behavior."
  • "Test Electron or Tauri window, shortcut, IPC, and offline flows."
  • "Review lifecycle, deep links, permissions, gestures, and safe areas."
  • "Plan simulator, emulator, and real-device accessibility evidence."

Profile detection

Detect framework, versions, native projects, build tools, package identifiers, navigation, permissions, deep links, update mechanism, test runners, CI, supported OS versions, architectures, and approved devices.

Read references/device-matrix.md before selecting coverage. A profile may be not applicable only with evidence.

Mobile testing

Read references/mobile-testing.md.

Cover when applicable: cold/warm start, foreground/background, termination, state restoration, deep links, permissions, safe areas, orientation, keyboard, gestures with alternatives, offline sync, conflict, push, app updates, dynamic type, VoiceOver/TalkBack, memory, battery, and frame behavior.

Desktop testing

Read references/desktop-testing.md.

Cover when applicable: first launch, window creation, resizing, minimum size, restore, multiple windows, menus, shortcuts, dialogs, file access, drag/drop alternatives, IPC trust boundaries, offline, updates, packaging, OS themes, high contrast, and screen-reader behavior.

Evidence rules

  • Separate unit/component, simulator/emulator, real device, packaged build, and OS-specific evidence.
  • Record OS, device/model, architecture, runtime, app build, locale, permissions, network, accessibility settings, and lifecycle state.
  • Use the repository's established Maestro, Detox, Appium, XCTest, XCUITest, JUnit, Compose UI, Espresso, Flutter, Playwright, or WebdriverIO setup.
  • Treat platform credentials and device-farm uploads as explicit operational boundaries.

Limits

  • Do not install a device runner, simulator, SDK, or paid service implicitly.
  • Do not claim native iOS or Android implementation capability without a representative pilot.
  • Do not treat web DOM or a desktop renderer test as proof of native shell, IPC, packaging, or OS behavior.
  • Do not capture real notifications, contacts, files, photos, accounts, or personal data in fixtures or evidence.

Progressive disclosure and bundled resources

  • references/device-matrix.md: risk-based matrix.
  • references/mobile-testing.md: mobile lifecycle and accessibility.
  • references/desktop-testing.md: windows, native bridge, and packaging.
  • evals/evals.json: representative output evaluations.

Output template

## Mobile/desktop test result
**Status:** ready | needs environment | blocked
**Profile:** <framework, platform, version>

### Matrix
| OS/device/build | Lifecycle/window state | Input/accessibility | Scenario | Result |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |

### Evidence gaps
- <real device, packaging, credential, store, or OS check>

Quality gate

  • Framework, platform versions, build type, support matrix, runners, and operational boundaries were detected.
  • Lifecycle, permissions, deep links, safe areas, input, offline, update, and accessibility behavior is covered when applicable.
  • Window, menu, shortcut, dialog, file, IPC, packaging, and OS behavior is covered for desktop profiles.
  • Simulator/emulator, real-device, packaged-build, and OS evidence remain distinct.
  • Environment metadata and safe synthetic data make results reproducible.
  • Unsupported profiles and unavailable evidence are explicit.

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.