fabrico-ui-verifying

name	fabrico-ui-verifying
description	UI verification criteria, severity, and Figma tolerances.

UI Verification

Verification process, criteria, and tolerances for comparing UI implementations against Figma designs.

Verification Process

Use the checklist below and track your progress:

Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Validate inputs
- [ ] Step 2: Get EXPECTED from Figma
- [ ] Step 3: Get ACTUAL from implementation
- [ ] Step 4: Compare using verification categories
- [ ] Step 5: Generate report

Step 1: Validate inputs

Before starting verification, confirm:

• Figma URL is available for the component/section being verified
• Dev server URL is confirmed by the user:
  • Check the project configuration (package.json scripts, .env, vite.config, next.config, etc.) for the configured port
  • MANDATORY: On first verification in a session, ask the user to confirm the dev server URL (e.g., "I detected port 3001 from package.json — is the frontend app running at http://localhost:3001?"). Do not guess from running processes, ps, netstat, or lsof output — multiple services may run on different ports and you cannot reliably distinguish frontend from backend.
  • Use the user-confirmed URL for all subsequent verifications in the same session
• Dev server is running and the target page is accessible at that URL:
  • Navigate to the specific page URL using the playwright MCP server
  • If the page redirects to a login/authentication screen: stop and ask the user — "The page redirected to [login URL]. How should I authenticate? Please provide credentials, a session token, or tell me how to bypass authentication for local development."
  • If the page shows unexpected content (error page, blank page, different route): stop and ask the user — "The page at [URL] shows [description]. Is this the correct URL for [component name]?"
  • Do not proceed with verification if you cannot see the expected component. Ask the user for help.
• If any input is missing or any blocker is encountered, stop and ask the user — do not proceed, do not fall back to code-level review, do not skip the verification step

Step 2: Get EXPECTED from Figma

Use the figma MCP server to extract the design specifications:

• Layer hierarchy and component structure
• Layout direction, alignment, spacing
• Frame widths relative to page — these determine whether containers should be narrow/centered or full-width
• Typography, colors, radii, shadows
• Component variants and states

Step 3: Get ACTUAL from implementation

Use the playwright MCP server to capture the running implementation. You MUST collect all three types of data — a verification that skips any type is incomplete:

1. Structure & content — element hierarchy, order, grouping (via accessibility snapshot)
2. Actual rendered dimensions — computed widths, heights, paddings, margins, gaps of every major container (via JavaScript evaluation of computed styles). This is the most commonly missed step — without it you cannot detect sizing/layout differences.
3. Visual appearance — full-page screenshot for side-by-side comparison with the design. Save screenshots to the task's specifications folder (e.g., specifications/<task-id>/screenshots/) with descriptive filenames including the component name and iteration number (e.g., establishment-details-form-iteration-1.png). This creates a visual audit trail for each verification cycle.

CRITICAL: The accessibility tree does NOT contain CSS dimensions. A full-width container and a narrow centered container produce identical accessibility trees. If you only collected structure without measuring actual rendered dimensions, your verification is INVALID — mark confidence as LOW and report what's missing.

Step 4: Compare using verification categories

Compare EXPECTED (Figma) against ACTUAL (implementation) following the Verification Order and Categories below. The Figma design is the source of truth for every comparison. When in doubt, the design wins.

IMPORTANT: Complete ALL verification categories in a single pass. Do not stop after finding differences in one category — continue through every category and collect every difference. The report must contain ALL differences found across all categories so the engineer can fix them all at once, minimizing verification iterations.

Step 5: Generate report

Produce a structured report following the Report Format below. Include exact values from both Figma and implementation for every difference found.

Verification Order

Always verify in this order — complete ALL categories regardless of findings. Do not stop after finding differences in one category. The goal is to catch every difference in a single pass so all fixes can be applied at once.

1. Structure (CRITICAL)
2. Layout (CRITICAL)
3. Dimensions (CRITICAL)
4. Visual (CRITICAL)
5. Components

Verification Categories

Structure (CRITICAL)

Check	Description
Container hierarchy	Does DOM structure match Figma's layer hierarchy?
Nesting depth	Are elements nested at the same level as in Figma?
Grouping	Are related elements grouped together as in design?
Element order	Is the visual order of elements the same?
Wrapper elements	Are there extra/missing wrapper divs that change layout?
Sections present	Are ALL sections from Figma present in implementation?

Layout (CRITICAL)

Check	Description
Flex/Grid direction	row vs column, wrap behavior
Alignment	justify-content, align-items values
Distribution	How space is distributed between elements
Positioning	relative, absolute, fixed - matches design intent?
Centering	Is content centered as in design?

Dimensions (CRITICAL)

Check	Description
Container width	max-width, fixed width constraints
Card/panel boundaries	Does card have same width as in Figma?
Content area vs viewport	Ratio of content width to available space
Width/Height	Fixed, percentage, auto, min/max constraints
Spacing	Padding, margin, gap between elements
Gaps	Space between flex/grid children

WARNING: Accessibility tree does NOT contain CSS dimensions. A full-width container and a narrow centered one look identical in it. You must measure actual computed styles to detect width/sizing differences.

Visual

Check	Description
Typography	font-family, size, weight, line-height, letter-spacing
Colors	Text, background, border colors
Radii	border-radius values
Shadows	box-shadow, drop-shadow
Backgrounds	Solid, gradient, image

Components

Check	Description
Correct variants	Is the right variant of a component used?
Design tokens	Are correct tokens used (not hardcoded values)?
States	hover, focus, active, disabled states

Tolerances

Category	Tolerance	Notes
Structure	None	Any structural difference = FAIL
Layout direction	None	row vs column must match exactly
Alignment	None	Centering, justify, align must match
Dimensions	1-2px	Only for browser rendering variance
Colors	Exact match	Must use correct design tokens
Typography	Exact match	Font properties must match
Spacing	1-2px	Only for browser rendering variance

Severity Definitions

Severity	Description	Action
Critical	Structure/layout differences, wrong component used	Must fix immediately
Major	Dimensions off by >2px, wrong colors/typography	Must fix before merge
Minor	1-2px browser rendering variance	Acceptable, document if recurring

Verification Checklist

Before reporting PASS:

• Verified ENTIRE page (scrolled from top to bottom)
• All sections from Figma are present in implementation
• Container hierarchy matches Figma layers
• Flex/grid direction is correct
• Alignment (justify/align) matches design
• Element order matches design
• No extra/missing wrapper elements that change layout
• Actual computed container widths measured (not inferred from accessibility tree)
• Full-page screenshot taken and visually compared against Figma

Report Format

## Verification Result: [PASS | FAIL]

### Component: [name]

**Confidence:** [HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW]

### Differences

| Property | Expected (Figma) | Actual (Implementation) | Severity   |
| -------- | ---------------- | ----------------------- | ---------- |
| [prop]   | [expected]       | [actual]                | [severity] |

> **List ALL differences found across ALL verification categories.** Do not omit lower-severity items when critical ones exist. The engineer needs the complete list to fix everything in one iteration.

### Recommended Fixes

- [specific fix with exact values]

Confidence levels:

• HIGH — Both Figma and implementation data complete, comparison is reliable
• MEDIUM — Some values couldn't be extracted, manual review recommended
• LOW — Tool errors occurred, manual verification required before making changes

Connected Skills

• fabrico-implementing-frontend - for implementing fixes following design system patterns
• fabrico-technical-context-discovering - for understanding project's design token conventions