frontend-visual-qa
Skill7 starsChanged 21 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Verify rendered frontend evidence after implementation, including screenshot comparison, responsiveness, overflow, visible states, and scoped visual regression. Use available browser tooling only; exclude static lookup, routine code review, lint, builds, onboarding, and tool detection.
5 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- daymade/claude-code-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 19, 2026
- deedeeharris/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 18, 2026
- newesp/my-skillstheir own version, first seen Aug 19, 2026
- mstfash/skillstheir own version, first seen Jul 5, 2026
- JSONbored/metagraphedtheir own version, first seen Jun 15, 2026
Other versions5 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 5
- daymade/claude-code-skills★ 1.5ksame name
- mstfash/skills★ 21same name
- JSONbored/metagraphed★ 11same name
- deedeeharris/claude-skills★ 7same name
- newesp/my-skills★ 0same 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 repository23 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- agent-rules-skill-authorSkill
- agent-self-improvementSkill
- design-screenshot-specSkill
- execution-plan-managerSkill
- frontend-architecture-plannerSkill
- frontend-bugfix-debuggerSkill
- frontend-design-directorSkill
- frontend-design-intelligenceSkill
- frontend-layout-implementerSkill
- frontend-linter-managerSkill
- frontend-prototype-explorerSkill
- frontend-quality-reviewerSkill
- frontend-refactor-surgeonSkill
- goal-plannerSkill
- greenfield-project-builderSkill
- loop-workflow-plannerSkill
- mcp-toolchain-managerSkill
- pattern-library-managerSkill
- project-context-adapterSkill
- project-onboarding-adapterSkill
- webdev-feedbackSkill
- webdev-kit-updaterSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
23 rules. 0 are common, 16 are distinctive, and 7 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 5 edited versions we read keep these.
16
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
7
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 37
Verify a rendered frontend implementation against a Design Implementation Spec, Design Direction Contract, and supplied visual references …
- Distinctive: line 43
After implementation when visual acceptance requires comparing the rendered page with supplied screenshots or visual references.
- Distinctive: line 44
When the user asks to run visual QA, capture desktop/mobile screenshots, or compare rendered output to a design reference.
- Distinctive: line 45
When the issue is visibly rendered: responsive layout, wrapping, overflow, clipping, occlusion, viewport fit, visible interaction states, …
- Distinctive: line 46
When console or runtime errors must be checked because they affect the rendered UI during visual QA.
- Distinctive: line 47
When a loop contract says to repair material visual deviations and rerun rendered evidence.
- Very specific: line 65
Read common/mobile-responsive-rules.md when responsive behavior is in scope.
- Very specific: line 66
Read common/verification-loop-rules.md and common/bounded-retry-rules.md when visual repair is in scope.
- Very specific: line 67
Read project/verification-profile.md when present.
- Very specific: line 68
Read the Design Implementation Spec, Design Direction Contract, visual references, changed files, and relevant routes or pages.
- Very specific: line 73
Use Browser or Playwright MCP only for rendered visual QA tasks allowed by common/rendered-visual-verification-policy.md.
- Distinctive: line 75
Do not replace a missing configured Browser or Playwright MCP with local Playwright package usage unless the user explicitly approved that …
- Distinctive: line 76
Use Visual Diff MCP when available to compare implementation screenshots with supplied references.
- Distinctive: line 77
Use Visual Reference MCP when available to access supplied images.
- Very specific: line 78
Use mdn only when web platform behavior affects a visual QA finding.
- Distinctive: line 79
Do not use Figma MCP.
- Distinctive: line 80
If Browser or Playwright MCP is unavailable, report which rendered checks are blocked and complete only the non-rendered checks that can be …
- Distinctive: line 87
Start or reuse the local app with the project's normal development or preview command only when rendered visual evidence is in scope.
- Distinctive: line 89
Check console and runtime errors only when they affect the rendered visual QA scope.
- Distinctive: line 90
Verify desktop, tablet, small phone, and landscape behavior when those viewports are in scope.
- Distinctive: line 94
If visual repair is in scope, list material deviations, fix scoped deviations, rerun rendered checks, and apply bounded retry rules.
- Distinctive: line 95
Do not use a visual repair loop as permission for broad redesign, new design direction, package installation, or unrelated layout cleanup.
- Distinctive: line 125
No Figma MCP use is allowed.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 5 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.
Files
Frontend Visual QA
Purpose
Verify a rendered frontend implementation against a Design Implementation Spec, Design Direction Contract, and supplied visual references when the task needs browser-rendered visual evidence.
This skill is not a general style-inspection tool. It exists for screenshot comparison, responsive rendering, visual regression evidence, visible state verification, and bounded repair loops when the implementation task includes fixes.
When To Use
- After implementation when visual acceptance requires comparing the rendered page with supplied screenshots or visual references.
- When the user asks to run visual QA, capture desktop/mobile screenshots, or compare rendered output to a design reference.
- When the issue is visibly rendered: responsive layout, wrapping, overflow, clipping, occlusion, viewport fit, visible interaction states, or screenshot-backed visual regression.
- When console or runtime errors must be checked because they affect the rendered UI during visual QA.
- When a loop contract says to repair material visual deviations and rerun rendered evidence.
When Not To Use
- Documentation-only, skill-only, backend-only, or static code review tasks.
- Design intake before implementation. Use
design-screenshot-spec. - Live Figma inspection or Figma MCP workflows.
- Font-family, font-size, font-weight, line-height, color, spacing, CSS variable, or token checks when values can be read from source files, copied inspect values, or the Design Implementation Spec.
- Computed-style checks whose only purpose is to read typography or token values.
- Routine lint, typecheck, build, refactor, onboarding, stack detection, or MCP detection.
Required Context
- Read
AGENTS.md. - Read
common/rendered-visual-verification-policy.md. - Confirm the classified task is
visual-qaand specifically needs rendered visual evidence. - Read
common/approved-patterns.md. - Read
common/anti-patterns.md. - Read
common/mobile-responsive-rules.mdwhen responsive behavior is in scope. - Read
common/verification-loop-rules.mdandcommon/bounded-retry-rules.mdwhen visual repair is in scope. - Read
project/verification-profile.mdwhen present. - Read the
Design Implementation Spec, Design Direction Contract, visual references, changed files, and relevant routes or pages. - Read
references/visual-qa-checklist.md.
Tool Contract
- Use Browser or Playwright MCP only for rendered visual QA tasks allowed by
common/rendered-visual-verification-policy.md. - Browser or Playwright MCP availability means the tool is callable in the current agent session. A running local server or an installed Playwright dependency does not count as MCP availability.
- Do not replace a missing configured Browser or Playwright MCP with local Playwright package usage unless the user explicitly approved that fallback for the current task.
- Use Visual Diff MCP when available to compare implementation screenshots with supplied references.
- Use Visual Reference MCP when available to access supplied images.
- Use
mdnonly when web platform behavior affects a visual QA finding. - Do not use Figma MCP.
- If Browser or Playwright MCP is unavailable, report which rendered checks are blocked and complete only the non-rendered checks that can be run honestly.
Workflow
- Identify target routes, pages, components, states, and viewports from the spec.
- Confirm the task is in the allowed rendered visual QA spectrum.
- For typography, spacing, color, and token questions, inspect the spec, copied values, CSS, tokens, and component styles first. Do not open Browser or Playwright just to read computed styles.
- Start or reuse the local app with the project's normal development or preview command only when rendered visual evidence is in scope.
- Open the rendered target in Browser or Playwright MCP only when that MCP tool is available and the task is in scope.
- Check console and runtime errors only when they affect the rendered visual QA scope.
- Verify desktop, tablet, small phone, and landscape behavior when those viewports are in scope.
- Capture implementation screenshots when visual comparison or evidence is in scope.
- Compare screenshots against visual references with Visual Diff MCP when available; otherwise perform manual comparison using the checklist.
- Exercise relevant hover, focus, selected, disabled, loading, empty, error, and interaction states only when provided by the spec or visible acceptance criteria.
- If visual repair is in scope, list material deviations, fix scoped deviations, rerun rendered checks, and apply bounded retry rules.
- Do not use a visual repair loop as permission for broad redesign, new design direction, package installation, or unrelated layout cleanup.
- Hand off material quality, architecture, TypeScript, security, or performance concerns to
frontend-quality-reviewerinstead of treating visual QA as a broad code review.
Output Contract
Final response: return only facts that affect the user's understanding, confidence, or next action. Omit empty fields and workflow narration.
Report:
- rendered visual QA scope;
- routes or pages verified;
- viewports checked;
- interactions or states checked;
- console/runtime findings when in scope;
- visual diff result or manual comparison summary;
- attempts when visual repair was in scope;
- static style checks used instead of browser tooling, when applicable;
- fixed issues or remaining deviations;
- blockers and unavailable tools.
Validation Gates
- Browser or Playwright must be used only for rendered visual QA tasks named in
common/rendered-visual-verification-policy.md. - A local Playwright package, lockfile entry, or running local server must not be reported as Browser or Playwright MCP availability.
- Font and token checks must prefer source files, copied inspect values, and specs over computed styles.
- A visual QA pass must include rendered browser evidence unless blocked.
- Visual repair attempts must be bounded and scoped to acceptance criteria.
- Static typecheck, lint, or build alone is not visual QA.
- Rendered verification is QA evidence, not a testing workflow.
- Material visual mismatches must be reported with the affected viewport or state.
- No Figma MCP use is allowed.
Trigger Evals
Should trigger:
- "Check the implemented page at desktop and 375px against these screenshots."
- "Verify overflow, fixed UI, and visible states in the rendered app."
Should not trigger:
- "Read the font token from this CSS file."
- "Detect whether Playwright MCP is installed during onboarding."
Reference Map
common/rendered-visual-verification-policy.mdcommon/mobile-responsive-rules.mdcommon/verification-loop-rules.mdcommon/bounded-retry-rules.mdreferences/visual-qa-checklist.md
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.

