tsh-ui-verifying
Ensures UI code matches design specifications with a systematic verification process.
Install
mkdir -p .claude/skills/tsh-ui-verifying && curl -L -o skill.zip "https://agentskills.codes/api/skills/download/10470" && unzip -o skill.zip -d .claude/skills/tsh-ui-verifying && rm skill.zipInstalls to .claude/skills/tsh-ui-verifying
Activation
This is the description your AI agent reads to decide when to run this skill — the better it matches your request, the more reliably it fires.
UI verification criteria, structure checklists, severity definitions, and tolerance rules for comparing implementations against Figma designs. Use for verifying UI matches design, understanding what to check, and determining acceptable differences.Key capabilities
- →Validate UI against Figma
- →Check layout accuracy
- →Identify design discrepancies
- →Generate verification reports
How it works
It compares live UI against Figma designs using a structured verification process, identifying discrepancies and severity levels.
Inputs & outputs
When to use tsh-ui-verifying
- →Comparing UI to Figma
- →Running UI QA
- →Verifying layout accuracy
- →Checking design consistency
About this skill
UI Verification
Verification process, criteria, and tolerances for comparing UI implementations against Figma designs.
Default to asking when anything is off — this is a judgment rule, not a checklist. Every specific blocker named in this skill (missing Figma, auth redirect, wrong page, missing or partial artifacts, unconfirmed URL, tool error, …) is only an EXAMPLE of one underlying rule: whenever you cannot run a real, complete verification against the full artifact base — because something is missing, broken, ambiguous, inconsistent, or simply unexpected, including situations not listed anywhere here — stop and raise it through
vscode/askQuestions(when that tool is available to you). Do not guess, do not improvise a workaround, do not fabricate values, and do not proceed on partial evidence. Think about whether the evidence you actually have supports a verdict; if it does not, ask instead of pushing forward.
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 a user-confirmed pinned session input:
- Standalone verification without a caller-provided URL: on the first verification in a session, ask the user to confirm the exact full dev server URL that should be used for verification. Do not infer it from project config, running processes, port scans, or other discovery.
- Delegated verification with a caller-provided user-confirmed URL: use that exact full URL unchanged for the entire session. Do not rediscover it, normalize it, swap ports, inspect config to suggest another URL, or launch a different local app/server.
- Once the user has confirmed the URL, every downstream verification and capture pass must treat it as pinned session state.
- Dev server is running and the target page is reachable through the CLI capture flow using that confirmed URL:
- Never circumvent an authentication, login, or access/permission gate by any means or technique — proactively or reactively. Legitimate authentication through the app's real login UI is allowed only when the user has explicitly authorized it and supplied the exact inputs required to perform it through a local env-based contract derived from the real login form, direct in-browser entry, or a real storage-state path created from a prior login. Navigate to the pinned URL only as an ordinary user would. Do not assume, fabricate, simulate, seed, inject, or manufacture any signed-in or authorized state. If you notice the gate is trivially bypassable (for example it can be satisfied entirely client-side), report it as a potential security vulnerability when you raise the blocker, so the user is made aware and can plan a fix — flag the concern, never exploit it.
- Use the CLI capture flow to open the page at the full target URL before verification begins
- If the capture flow reports a redirect to a login/authentication screen and the required login inputs were not already provided: first determine whether the redirected screen is a standard credential form. If it is, derive one repo-root
.envvar per required field from the live form using this order of precedence for the field key:name->autocomplete->id-> visible label text. Normalize the chosen key to uppercase snake case and prefix it withTSH_UI_LOGIN_. Examples:email->TSH_UI_LOGIN_EMAIL,userName->TSH_UI_LOGIN_USER_NAME,company-code->TSH_UI_LOGIN_COMPANY_CODE. If the verifying agent hasvscode/askQuestions, the immediate next action MUST be avscode/askQuestionscall telling the user to add those exact derived env vars to repo-root.envand confirm when the file is saved. On the next capture pass, reload.envand reuse those env vars without printing their values. Use a prepared storage-state path or direct manual login only when the redirected screen is not a standard credential form (for example SSO chooser, MFA challenge, or captcha), the runtime cannot derive the field keys reliably, or the user explicitly prefers one of those fallbacks. Do NOT bypass, seed, inject, or fake authentication yourself by any means or technique, and never fake an identity or assume a role, even if you can see how the auth check works. Use this wording pattern for the user message: "The page redirected to login. Add these exact vars to repo-root.envand tell me when the file is saved:- [DERIVED_ENV_VAR_1]=...
- [DERIVED_ENV_VAR_2]=...
After you save the file, I will rerun capture and reload
.envautomatically."
- If the capture flow reports a redirect to a login/authentication screen and the required login inputs were already provided, continue through the authenticated capture pre-step below instead of treating the redirect as a manual-only blocker.
- If the capture flow reports unexpected content (error page, blank page, different route): if the verifying agent has
vscode/askQuestions, the immediate next action MUST be avscode/askQuestionscall such as: "The page at [URL] shows [description]. Is this the correct URL for [component name]?" Do not ask in plain assistant text first. - If the capture flow cannot find the expected component on the confirmed page: if the verifying agent has
vscode/askQuestions, raise the blocker through that tool immediately rather than a freeform reply.
- If any input is missing or any blocker is encountered, stop and resolve it through
vscode/askQuestionswhen that tool is available to the verifying agent — do not proceed, do not fall back to code-level review, and do not skip the verification step
Authenticated capture pre-step
- Use this only when the user has explicitly authorized a genuine login and either populated the local
.envcontract derived from the real login form, completed the redirected real login form in the open browser session, or supplied an already-authenticated storage-state path. - A genuine login means using the application's real sign-in UI exactly as an ordinary user would. It is allowed. Bypass is not.
- Standard local env contract: in the target repo
.envfile, set one env var per required login field using the derived naming ruleTSH_UI_LOGIN_<NORMALIZED_FIELD_KEY>, whereNORMALIZED_FIELD_KEYcomes fromname->autocomplete->id-> visible label text, normalized to uppercase snake case. - Default path: if the redirect lands on a standard credential form, ask the user to populate the exact derived
.envvars and confirm when the file is saved, then rerun capture with.envreloaded before filling the login form. Use direct in-browser login or a prepared storage-state path only for non-standard auth flows such as SSO, MFA, or captcha or when.envautomation is not workable. - Never ask the user to paste the password into chat. Read the env vars only at runtime and do not echo their values back into artifacts, reports, or tool output.
- Preferred pattern: perform the real login once,
state-saveto a secret path outsidespecifications/**, thenstate-loadthat path for each later capture iteration so the authenticated session is reused instead of recreated. - Never write credentials into task specs, reports, artifacts, or committed files. Never seed cookies, tokens,
localStorage, orsessionStorageby hand.
Step 2: Get EXPECTED from Figma — MANDATORY, runs BEFORE capture
This step is mandatory and always runs before capturing the implementation. A verification without fresh Figma EXPECTED data is INVALID. EXPECTED comes ONLY from the figma MCP tools — never open a figma.com URL (or any Figma link) in the Playwright/CLI browser to "fetch" the design, and never screenshot the Figma web app, its login page, or an error page as the reference. The browser is for the running app (ACTUAL) only. Do these in order:
- Resolve the Figma node from the supplied Figma URL (extract
fileKey+nodeId). If the URL or node cannot be resolved, raise it throughvscode/askQuestions(when that tool is available), reportVERIFICATION NOT RUN, and stop. Never continue without a resolved node. - Export the Figma node image via the
figmaMCP and SAVE it to the shared verification directory asspecifications/<task-id>/ui-verification/figma-expected.png(the parent directory of the iteration directories defined in Step 3). Use thefigmaMCP's node-image / screenshot export — not a browser screenshot. This file is REQUIRED for the verification item and must be the real design export; it is the visual reference the comparison is judged against. Do not keep it only in memory or a tool response; it must exist on disk in the shared verification directory. If thefigmaMCP is not available in this workspace, that is a blocker: do NOT fall back to the browser and do NOT save any non-design image asfigma-expected.png— reportVERIFICATION NOT RUNand usevscode/askQuestionsto ask the user to enable the Figma MCP or provide an exported reference image. - Extract the design specifications to compare against:
- Layer hierarchy and component structure
- Layout direction, alignment, spacing
- Frame width (use it as the capture viewport width in Step 3)
- Typography, colors, radii, shadows
- Component variants and states
ENSURE-OR-FETCH: At the start of every pass, check whether a valid shared
figma-expected.png(a real design export) already exists atspecifications/<task-id>/ui-verification/figma-expected.pngfor the current verification item. If it is missing, export it now via thefigmaMCP (steps 1–2 above). If it already exists and the Figma URL/node is unchanged, reus
Content truncated.
When not to use it
- →Bypassing authentication
- →Fabricating state
Prerequisites
Limitations
- →Requires live capture artifacts
- →Manual review for low-confidence results
How it compares
It mandates a pinned session URL and explicit authentication handling, ensuring reliable and reproducible verification.
Compared to similar skills
tsh-ui-verifying side by side with the closest alternatives in the catalog.
| Skill | Installs | Updated | Safety | Difficulty |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| tsh-ui-verifying (this skill) | 0 | 3mo | Review | Intermediate |
| web-design-guidelines | 32 | 6mo | No flags | Beginner |
| ui-visual-validator | 1 | 4mo | No flags | Intermediate |
| visual-evidence | 0 | 26d | Review | Intermediate |
Try saying
Example prompts that trigger this skill in your AI assistant.
More by TheSoftwareHouse
View all by TheSoftwareHouse →You might also like
web-design-guidelines
vercel
Review UI code for Web Interface Guidelines compliance. Use when asked to "review my UI", "check accessibility", "audit design", "review UX", or "check my site against best practices".
ui-visual-validator
sickn33
Rigorous visual validation expert specializing in UI testing, design system compliance, and accessibility verification. Masters screenshot analysis, visual regression testing, and component validation. Use PROACTIVELY to verify UI modifications have achieved their intended goals through comprehensive visual analysis.
visual-evidence
bamr87
**WORKFLOW SKILL** — The standard for proving a UI/behavioural change works: a regression test + before/after visual evidence, attached to the PR and surfaced in release notes. USE FOR: any change under _sass/ _includes/ _layouts/ assets/ (or any user-visible behaviour); after a bug fix that changed
visual-verdict
xz1220
截图与参考图对比的结构化视觉 QA 判定
paper-parity
GLaDO8
Use when comparing or recreating this repo's UI in Paper MCP and fixing parity issues against the live rendered site.
gsd-ui-review
AdityaArote
Retroactive 6-pillar visual audit of implemented frontend code