Add or extend a Paperclip full-stack runner E2E workflow, fixture, matcher, or report evidence path for local or Daytona execution.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Keep Paperclip stories and their downstream catalog aligned with the feature map and production UI. Use to reconcile story drift, classify prototypes, update fixtures, or maintain feature coverage.
インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。
Read the Storybook catalog contract,
the relevant feature recipes, and
DESIGN.md. The feature map is an upstream input. This skill
owns stories, their fixtures/support, and maps/storybook-map/; it does not edit
the feature or agent-access maps. Report upstream drift to
maintain-verification-skill with source evidence.
For a feature/change, follow its capability IDs to catalog entries and shared
dependencies. For a full inventory, account for every configured story file,
including historical examples. Start with node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs.
Record the source revision and whether the pass covers source, rendering,
interactions, or visual comparisons. Inventory completeness is not behavioral
coverage. Do not expand a targeted maintenance request into an all-product audit.
Compare each affected story's rendered subject, props, fixture responses, actions, and assertions with the production implementation and recipe. Follow imported wrappers: a production Button inside a locally recreated page does not make that page a production-component story. A real production page using mocked APIs is valid isolation; record component provenance and data simulation separately. Inspect mock methods/paths, payload shapes, errors, identity, gates, and reset behavior. An API method returning success without the relevant state transition can hide drift. Do not replace errors with generic successful mocks to pass.
Prefer mounting the shipped subject and mocking its external boundary. Retain local layout wrappers and fixture data when they serve that isolation. Replace a duplicate product implementation only when the current component expresses the same scenario without losing the original purpose. Production bugs and larger redesigns are separate findings, not reasons to rewrite expected behavior.
Classify current examples, proposals, historical explorations, and unresolved
cases explicitly. Use unreviewed when evidence does not establish parity.
Retain useful superseded work with its rationale and replacement reference;
do not delete a story merely because it is old, mocked, or duplicated by name.
Record mixed suites honestly and split them only when that improves review.
Assign existing stable area/capability references, with one primary reference
and optional related references. Foundations and unmapped proposals need explicit
reasons rather than invented capabilities. Cross-cutting stories have one source
and several references. Do not count historical/proposed stories as current
feature coverage.
Preserve story exports and IDs. Before moves/title changes, capture the existing
built index.json; use explicit meta IDs when needed and compare IDs afterward.
Place stories under ui/storybook/stories/<primary-feature-area>/. Use the feature
map's section and feature names as their sidebar prefix; keep useful scenario
groupings beneath that prefix. Put shared fixture modules in ui/storybook/support/.
Keep the catalog's stableId equal to the explicit CSF meta ID even when the title
changes. Unmapped component examples belong under Foundations; the catalog guide
belongs under Overview. The checker verifies these conventions.
Keep review links and snapshot names working. Prefer classification/index fixes
before bulk directory moves. Record every directly rendered production subject in
the catalog's review sources, including relative imports and primitives when they
are the demonstrated subject. Do not cap the number of source references.
Update review fingerprints only after inspecting the changed source; do not refresh hashes merely
to silence drift checks.
Update the catalog and run node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs --write to refresh
its generated index, then run the checker without flags. The script validates
inventory/references/review fingerprints, not semantic parity or runtime health.
Use review-storybook for affected rendering and interactions. Reuse the existing
Storybook/Playwright tools; add no separate launcher, runtime, or baseline system.
Do not accept new screenshot baselines as part of a catalog cleanup.
Report what was corrected, retained, and still needs review, naming exact files and capabilities. Keep source-only results separate from executed results and name blocked checks. A full pass must not hide unreviewed stories or claim that fixture interactions establish production API, permission, or provider behavior.
まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。
概要と使いどころ
Add or extend a Paperclip full-stack runner E2E workflow, fixture, matcher, or report evidence path for local or Daytona execution.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Add or extend a Paperclip Runner protocol evaluation definition, roster, assertion, or report fixture with provenance and narrow validation.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Drive a real browser to inspect or interact with a web page or app — navigate, take screenshots, read console and network, fill simple forms — for verification tasks, not unattended automation.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Use your assigned AgentMail inbox to read email tasks, explicitly send or reply, and check delivery. Provided automatically by your inbox assignment.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Check a GitHub, GitLab, or Perforce PR/MR/CL for review comments, failing checks, and PR-body gaps. Use when asked to inspect, fix, or prepare a change for submission.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Create agent company packages that conform to agentcompanies/v1. Use when asked to create a company, scaffold an agent team, hire agents, or turn a repo/skills collection into a company package.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。