Review Paperclip interface changes using Storybook, a catalog of component examples, alongside production source and existing browser tests. Report rendering, interaction, visual comparison, and production evidence separately, making simulated behavior and untested areas clear.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Review Paperclip stories for a feature or change using the Storybook catalog, production source, and existing browser tests. Report component, mock, interaction, and visual evidence separately.
安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。
Read the catalog contract and find the
requested capability in its generated index. Check the relevant feature recipe,
production subject, and story before driving it. Catalog status is prior review
context, not proof of the current revision. This skill consumes the maps/catalog;
corrections belong to maintain-storybook or maintain-verification-skill.
Choose discriminating states for the requested change: the normal action and result, relevant failure/retry, gate/permission presentation, and mobile/theme variants where affected. Record chosen files/exports and omitted scope. For a full source review, account for every file; do not describe sampling as full render or interaction coverage.
When reviewing navigation/index changes, compare the guide and sidebar with the full ordered index generated from feature recipes' navigation metadata. Open a feature without examples and a feature whose related suite lives elsewhere; check capability order, gap messages, classifications, recipe links, and actual suite navigation. Compare built entry IDs before/after so existing links survive. Generated Overview pages do not establish new example coverage.
Use the existing Storybook commands:
pnpm build-storybook, or an owned Storybook dev server on an available local
port. Use the built ui/storybook-static/index.json for actual story IDs and
links. Do not trust an unrelated server on the default port. Keep the process
handle and stop only the server this review started, retaining useful evidence.
Inspect the real rendered subject, including errors and browser console output.
For interactive stories, wait for their play assertions to complete and inspect
the observable result. A screenshot alone does not prove play passed. Verify
fixture isolation by revisiting/resetting relevant stories when they mutate
fetch handlers, storage, query caches, time, or module state. Avoid real provider
actions; explicitly document any live dependency required by a story.
The existing visual suite is
tests/storybook-visual/storybook-visual.spec.ts. It uses external baselines and
a pinned Linux environment. Inspect baseline-manifest.json before claiming
visual regression proof. An unpublished manifest blocks comparisons; a macOS
capture is useful inspection, not the Linux baseline. Do not update/publish
baselines just to make a review pass. Use existing focused browser suites where
they cover the requested scenario, and the production verification skill when
the question requires backend persistence, real authorization, or provider proof.
Report each selected case as passed, failed, blocked, or not run, naming revision, story ID, environment, production versus prototype subject, simulated boundaries, action/assertion and observed result. Separate render, interaction, visual comparison, and production acceptance evidence. Report proven drift with exact source references and a proposed correction; do not lower expectations, remove failing cases, or silently bless historical behavior as current.
还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。
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。
Add or extend Paperclip end-to-end evaluations that exercise real browser workflows across the server, database, and runner. Define expected outcomes, check independent evidence, and connect results to the existing reporting pipeline for local or Daytona execution.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Add or extend Paperclip Runner evaluations that test real sessions against a mock control service. Define observable pass conditions, validate cases and run selections, and retain source revisions, evidence, and costs for authorized live runs.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Use a real browser to verify web pages and apps through short, supervised interactions. Capture screenshots, inspect errors and network requests, and document reproducible steps for UI bugs or expected behavior checks.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Read email linked to assigned Paperclip tasks, send new messages or replies through an assigned AgentMail inbox, and check delivery outcomes. Follow task permissions and preserve retry identifiers to avoid duplicate sends.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Inspect proposed changes in GitHub, GitLab, or Perforce for review feedback, failed automated checks, and incomplete descriptions. It separates actionable findings from informational or resolved comments, then helps fix issues and close addressed review threads when requested.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Create an AI agent company or team package from an idea or an existing repository. Define roles, reporting lines, skills, and work handoffs, then generate structured files that follow the Agent Companies specification.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。