| name | project-guide-validation |
| description | Protocol for validating the technical accuracy, framework nuances, and evaluation readiness of web guidance. Use this skill when assigned to validate or review a guide, demo, or expectations file. |
Guide Validation
This protocol defines the process for an AI agent to validate the technical accuracy, framework nuances, and evaluation readiness of web guidance. It ensures that guidance is not only correct according to documentation but also robust in practice across different framework reactivity models and target environments.
Validation Checklist
When assigned to validate a guide, create a task list artifact based on this checklist and complete each phase:
1. Familiarization
Before performing any verification, read the guide.md file in its entirety:
- Understand the Problem: Identify the core issue the guide is addressing (e.g., reactive state drift, layout shift, performance bottleneck).
- Identify the Solution: Understand the recommended API, property, or architectural approach (e.g., Temporal API, container queries, scheduler.yield).
- Contextualize: Get familiar with the overall structure and flow of the guidance before checking external sources or running tests.
2. Qualitative & Best Practices Review
Critically evaluate the guide's content to ensure it follows established best practices and does not introduce anti-patterns:
- Discipline-Specific Skills: Check if there are finalized "production ready" skill files for the relevant discipline located at
guides/<discipline>/skill.md. If they exist, ensure the guide complies with them.
- Accessibility (A11y): Accessibility is a distinct concern that MUST always be evaluated. The canonical reference is
guides/accessibility/accessibility/guide.md. Read it first, then apply it as follows:
guide.md under review: MUST adhere to every applicable best practice across all sections of the canonical guide (landmarks/headings, ARIA roles, names/descriptions, focus management, keyboard navigation, alt text and SVG treatment, hints and validation, live regions, non-color state indicators, reduced motion, dialog/overlay semantics, and visibility hiding decisions). Recommendations and code samples must not contradict the canonical guide. Pay particular attention to copy-paste safety (code examples must embed the rules they mention, e.g. prefers-reduced-motion, :focus-visible, aria-hidden), multi-indicator state communication, AT-tree synchronization with visibility changes, and post-transition focus management.demo.html under review: NOT held to general a11y best practices — only required to faithfully demonstrate the patterns the guide.md prescribes. If the guide mandates a specific a11y pattern (e.g., aria-live="polite" on toasts, aria-pressed on a toggle, prefers-reduced-motion in CSS), the demo MUST show it. Do not flag demos for missing a11y features that the guide does not call out.expectations.md under review: SHOULD encode the a11y patterns that the guide prescribes as testable expectations, but MUST NOT include prose-only or manual-verification-only requirements that the grader cannot assert.
- Avoid Gating Critical Content: Verify that the guide does not recommend interactive reveal patterns (e.g., following the cursor) that are inaccessible to non-pointer users. Ensure accessible alternatives are provided if such patterns are discussed.
- Internal Consistency: Ensure no deviations from existing skills or established patterns in the project.
- Copy-Paste Safety: Ensure that code examples are complete and safe to copy. If the text recommends a fallback or a constraint (like reduced motion), the code example MUST implement it.
3. Expectation Alignment
Ensure that the expectations.md file (used for evaluation) aligns perfectly with guide.md:
- Traceability: Every expectation should be traceable back to a specific recommendation in the guide. Do not create expectations for behaviors not covered in the guidance.
- Actionability: The guide must provide clear instructions on how to meet each expectation. An agent should not have to guess the implementation to satisfy an expectation.
- Outcome Focus: Expectations should focus on the observable output and behavior (e.g., "The UI correctly updates when the date is modified"), not the specific implementation approach (unless strictly required by the guide's constraints).
4. Testing and Verification with DevTools MCP
Always use the DevTools MCP server to test the demo associated with the guide. This drives testing autonomously without requiring manual user interaction.
Steps for Verification:
- Start Local Server First: Before opening the page with DevTools MCP, start a lightweight HTTP server (e.g., using
python3 -m http.server 8080 or npx http-server in the background via run_command) to serve the demo file. This ensures that polyfills and modules load correctly for both automated and manual tests, avoiding issues with the file:/// protocol.
- Load the Demo: Use
mcp_chrome-devtools-mcp_new_page to open the demo via the local server URL (e.g., http://localhost:8080/demo.html).
- Exercise the Demo Fully: Interact with the demo to test every corner of the use case and exercise all available options. Use
mcp_chrome-devtools-mcp_click, mcp_chrome-devtools-mcp_type_text, etc.
- Verify Alignment: If any part of the demo behavior does not align with the guidance in
guide.md, ask the user to help reconcile which one needs to be fixed.
- Stop if Broken: If the automated test fails to demonstrate the expected behavior or shows critical correctness issues, STOP here. Do not proceed to manual verification. Fix the issue or report it in the feedback report.
Baseline and Fallback Verification
- Target Baseline: The demo file should always assume a baseline target of widely available.
- Check Status: Use the
baseline-status skill (by reading its SKILL.md file) to learn how to query the status of any given feature.
- Fallback Requirement: If a feature is NOT widely available, the demo file MUST demonstrate how the fallback strategy described in the guide should be used.
5. Manual Verification
After automated testing with DevTools MCP, guide the user through manual verification of the demo. This helps confirm behavior across different environments and provides confidence in the solution.
Instructions for the Agent:
- Prerequisite: Only proceed to manual verification if the automated tests in Step 4 passed or if specific cross-browser testing is required that DevTools cannot cover.
- Provide Link: Provide the user with the local server URL started in Step 4.
- Guide the User: Provide the user with clear, step-by-step instructions on how to interact with the demo manually.
- Specify what to click on or what inputs to provide.
- Describe what they should look for to confirm success or failure.
- Test in Supported and Unsupported Browsers:
- Supported: Chrome is the target for DevTools MCP, but encourage the user to also try it themselves via the local server link.
- Unsupported: Identify a browser that does not support the feature (using the
baseline-status skill). Suggest testing in a browser that lacks support to verify the fallback behavior.
- Handle "Newly Available" Features: If the feature is newly Baseline and it is hard to find an unsupported browser version, guide the user to perform a static evaluation of the code (e.g., checking for feature detection and fallback logic in the source).
- Success Criteria: Explain clearly how the user can convince themselves that the demo illustrates a correct implementation of the use case.
Common Failure Patterns to Watch For:
ReferenceError: Can't find variable: Temporal (Safari): Often caused by race conditions between dynamic polyfill loading and application execution, or by file:/// protocol restrictions.- Unconditional Polyfill Loading: Using a standard
<script> tag for a polyfill violates project standards; it must be conditionally loaded.
- Implementation-Prescriptive Expectations: Watch for expectations that mandate a specific syntax (e.g.,
typeof Temporal === 'undefined') instead of a functional outcome.
6. Feedback Report
After completing the validation steps, provide the user with a structured feedback report.
Guidelines for the Report:
- Summarize Findings: Inform the user of what you found during verification (expectations, demo behavior).
- Focus on Critical Issues: Highlight critical gaps or correctness issues (e.g., "The polyfill is loaded unconditionally despite the guide saying it should be conditional"). Ignore minor nitpicks that do not affect the technical accuracy or user experience.
- Make Recommendations: If issues were found, make clear recommendations for fixes.
- State Status: Clearly state if the demo passed or failed automated and manual verification.
