跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开中文介绍

maintain-storybook

将Paperclip的Storybook界面示例与实际产品及功能清单对照,整理数据、分类和引用,保留示例标识与链接,并区分当前功能示例、原型和历史探索。

原文查看原文说明

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.

实测评分 未实测

查看安装方法

适用场景

  • 在界面变更后维护展示示例
  • 更新模拟数据与API响应
  • 分类原型和历史界面示例
  • 查找缺少当前示例的功能

中文介绍

功能

maintain-storybook将Paperclip的Storybook界面示例与实际产品和功能清单对照,维护示例内容。它检查展示对象、配置值、测试数据、操作和断言,区分当前示例、提案阶段的原型、历史探索及尚未确认的示例。同时整理功能关联和目录,保留现有示例的标识与链接。

适用场景

适合产品已更新、Storybook却仍停留在旧版本时使用,也适合修正模拟API响应与实际行为之间的偏差。还可以用来确认哪些功能缺少当前示例。对于旧示例,会记录保留理由和替代示例,留下有用的探索过程。

使用示例

  • “将这个功能的示例与产品界面对照,更新数据和分类。”
  • “区分原型与当前示例,整理缺少示例的功能。”

注意事项

使用现有的Storybook和Playwright机制。功能清单本身不在编辑范围内,需要修改的内容会另行报告。仅通过目录检查不能保证显示或行为一致。渲染和交互检查使用review-storybook。不会直接编辑生成文件,也不会因目录整理而更新截图比较基准。

本介绍由 AI(OpenAI Codex)根据公开的 SKILL.md 撰写。准确的规格请查看下方原文。

文档检查

AI 根据 SKILL.md 的内容检查了需要注意的操作和使用前提。评分只依据实际运行的结果(实测对比)。

安全性发送数据、删除文件、执行命令等是否有说明
A良好限定编辑范围,禁止直接编辑生成文件、随意删除旧示例和更新截图基准。
安装难易度所需工具和 API 密钥是否少且有说明
B部分不足指定现有Storybook、Playwright工具及参考文档,但未提供环境搭建步骤。

不计入评分。 由 AI(OpenAI Codex)于 2026年10月20日 评估。仅供参考,安装前请同时查看原文。

如果您认为评估有误,请申请复核

请写明哪一项有误以及原因。无需登录。我们会对照 SKILL.md 重新评估,并在此处更新结果。

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

包含的文件(2)

  • SKILL.md6.5 KB
  • agents/openai.yaml117 B

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

Maintain Storybook

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.

Reconcile the requested scope

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.

Preserve identity and keep the index useful

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.

For shared foundations that demonstrate a mapped capability, keep their existing folder/sidebar with home: "foundations" and an exception reason, then add related capability references. Inspect the named exports before linking them. Notes must name the demonstrated states and remaining limits; an association does not certify the whole capability. If a story reveals a shipped capability absent upstream, reconcile its feature recipe and access companion through map maintenance first.

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 explicit CSF meta ID stable even when the title changes; the generated catalog derives stableId from it. Unmapped component examples belong under Foundations; the catalog guide belongs under Overview. The checker verifies these conventions.

Keep the main guide and every feature Overview congruent with the upstream index: same section/feature names and order, all capabilities in recipe order, related suite links across primary homes, and explicit missing examples. Run node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs to regenerate ignored indexes, feature pages, and preview ordering. Storybook startup/build also generates them. Never hand-edit or commit generated output. Generated guides are not example coverage. Preserve their feature-map-<area>--overview IDs. The generator removes obsolete pages from its own ignored output directory when areas disappear.

Keep review links and snapshot names working. Prefer classification fixes before bulk directory moves. Store capability associations, classification, and durable limits in each story's literal parameters.paperclip object. Infer file paths, exports and stable IDs from CSF; do not maintain a second inventory. Use Git diff and history to choose changed production subjects, fixtures and shared sources for review. Record source revision and executed evidence in the PR or CI report; do not refresh hashes, dates, or a shared review journal.

Verification routes belong in each feature recipe's optional Storybook verification section. Report needed corrections to maintain-verification-skill. Distinguish missing shipped UI examples from CLI/operator operations and real browser checks. Keep concrete production contracts and existing test starting points; test presence is not passing evidence. The generated verification report lists capabilities without current examples. Associating an example must not discard its separate production verification obligations.

Run node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs --check and node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs scripts/storybook-catalog.test.mjs scripts/storybook-feature-index.test.mjs. Checks validate local annotations, discovered inventory and references, 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.

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

add-product-e2e-eval

免费有简介

为Paperclip新增或扩展贯穿真实浏览器、服务器、数据库和runner的端到端评估,整理测试数据、判定条件与证据,并在现有报告中查看操作结果。

  • 新增完整用户操作流程的评估
  • 更新测试数据与判定条件
  • 在评估报告中加入截图和产物
paperclipai/paperclip10.7万2026年10月24日 更新

add-runner-eval

免费有简介

为Paperclip Runner添加或扩展行为评估,定义判定条件、执行目标和报告验证数据,利用正常及异常证据验证结果,并保留执行记录与费用。

  • 添加Runner行为评估
  • 用有效与无效证据检验判定
  • 更新执行列表和持续评估
paperclipai/paperclip10.7万2026年10月24日 更新

agent-browser

免费有简介

通过实际浏览器操作网页和应用,检查界面显示与运行情况。结合截图、简单表单填写、错误及网络请求记录,帮助复现问题并确认操作结果。

  • 检查界面修改后的显示效果
  • 读取由JavaScript渲染的内容
  • 复现界面问题并记录错误
paperclipai/paperclip10.7万2026年10月24日 更新

agentmail

免费有简介

通过 Paperclip 分配的 AgentMail 收件箱,查看任务关联邮件、发送新邮件或回复,并核查投递结果;重试时保留相同标识,避免重复发送。

  • 查看所负责任务关联的邮件
  • 从分配的收件箱发送新邮件
  • 回复会话中的指定邮件
paperclipai/paperclip10.7万2026年10月24日 更新

check-pr

免费有简介

检查GitHub、GitLab和Perforce变更中的评审意见、自动检查失败及说明缺漏,整理待办事项,并按请求协助修改和解决已处理的讨论。

  • 提交变更前进行检查
  • 确认失败的检查和待修改项
  • 整理人工及机器人评审意见
paperclipai/paperclip10.7万2026年10月24日 更新

company-creator

免费有简介

根据构想或现有代码仓库,梳理AI智能体的职责、汇报关系与工作交接,生成符合规范的公司或团队文件包,供组织协作和导入Paperclip使用。

  • 从构想建立智能体公司
  • 将代码仓库整理为团队
  • 设计职责分工与工作交接
paperclipai/paperclip10.7万2026年10月24日 更新

查看 paperclipai 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题