Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
待分类权限需确认github未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计通过

storyboardstoryboard 文档

Agent Skill

storyboard 用于处理 GitHub 仓库、Issue、Pull Request 和代码协作信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要围绕仓库状态、代码变更或协作事项进行整理时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

总安装

581

周安装

12

GitHub Stars

643

下载量

97
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

unknown

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:storyboard(storyboard 文档)
来源仓库:https://github.com/citypaul/.dotfiles
仓库路径:skills/storyboard
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/citypaul/.dotfiles --skill storyboard
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/citypaul/.dotfiles --skill storyboard

简介

用于处理 GitHub 仓库、Issue、Pull Request 和代码协作信息,辅助项目状态整理。

  • 适用于 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要围绕代码变更进行梳理的场景。
  • 可结合来源仓库和原始 README 进一步核验具体用法和功能细节。
  • 安装前建议确认权限范围和维护状态,避免触发不必要的联网或文件操作。
  • storyboard 属于待分类类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

SKILL.md

name
storyboard
description
Produce a mock-audit storyboard — a single HTML page embedding every UX surface in a scope of work side-by-side, with per-mock audit checklists, a flow diagram, and gap cards for missing mocks. Use before any feature touching multiple UX surfaces begins implementation. Also use when the user says "make it easy for me to see all these mocks in one place", "audit the mocks", or "I want to review the whole flow".

Storyboard

A storyboard is a single reviewable HTML page that stitches every UX surface in a scope of work into one view. Each existing mock is embedded as a live <iframe>. A flow diagram at the top shows how the user moves through them. Gap cards mark mocks that still need producing. Per-mock audit checklists give the reviewer a place to approve or flag concrete fixes.

Purpose: move the design audit from "open a dozen tabs and try to hold the flow in your head" to "open one page and scroll". Gives you a reviewable artifact that pairs with whatever textual decision record you keep (a plan doc, an audit note, a PR description).

When to produce one

  • Before any feature whose scope touches ≥ 2 UX surfaces begins implementation. Examples: a signup flow (signup → verify email → onboarding), a settings page (profile / notifications / delete / billing), an invitation flow (send → email → accept → landing).
  • Before a planned chunk of work that covers multiple surfaces — whatever the project's unit of planning (milestone, epic, phase, batch). When the chunk collectively touches multiple surfaces, storyboard the whole thing before starting.
  • Single-feature audit when a feature spans multiple states (a flow with loading / empty / populated / error states across 3+ steps).
  • The user explicitly asks for "everything in one place", "the whole flow", "audit the mocks", "I want to see all of this together".
  • Before producing new mocks. Storyboarding the existing ones first reveals gaps visually and forces brainstorm questions per gap before drafting.

When NOT to produce one

  • Single-mock work (a one-off copy fix on a settings page). Open the mock, run the impeccable pipeline, done.
  • Purely API / data-migration / ops items with no UX surface. No mocks = nothing to storyboard.
  • Exploratory / throwaway work before scope is settled. Storyboard is a reviewing artifact; you need something worth reviewing first.
  • Features already fully built. The storyboard is pre-implementation. Post-hoc, if you need a visual review, run the critique skill on the live surfaces instead.

Inputs the skill gathers

Before drafting the HTML, gather:

  1. Scope code + title. E.g. Onboarding v2 — reset regression, Settings page — profile + notifications, M3 · address book. Sets the page title + breadcrumb.
  2. Existing mocks in scope. Walk the project's design-mocks folder (or equivalent) and collect the paths relevant to this scope. Each existing mock becomes an embedded panel.
  3. User flow. The sequence of states + transitions the user walks through. Draw as ASCII in a <pre> block. Mark gaps with distinctive colour / glyph.
  4. Gaps. New mocks the scope needs but doesn't have yet. Each gap gets its own card with brainstorm questions the user must answer before we produce it — no gap without questions.
  5. Upstream / adjacent surfaces. Not part of this scope but provide context (e.g. where the user lands after this flow). Embed at smaller iframe height.
  6. Links to companion docs. Plan entry, design brief, relevant ADR, parent index page.

Output location

Place the storyboard HTML in the project's existing mocks or launch-planning folder, next to where the mocks live so relative iframe paths work. Common locations:

  • apps/<app>/design-mocks/<scope>-audit.html
  • design-mocks/<scope>-storyboard.html
  • plans/<feature>/storyboard.html

Match the naming convention of other artifacts in the repo. If there's a mock manifest or index page, add a featured link to the storyboard so it's discoverable.

Required structure (sections in order)

A storyboard is a pattern, not a template. Every storyboard has these sections in this order; the content inside each is specific to the scope.

1. Breadcrumb

Back-link to the parent index (mocks manifest, planning index, etc.).

2. Header

  • Small pill with scope code (e.g. Onboarding v2 or whatever the project uses) in an uppercase-tracking style.
  • Serif display title describing the scope.
  • Short subhead (one sentence) naming the purpose of this page.
  • Paragraph explaining what the scope is + link row to item README, design brief, and any relevant ADR.

3. Flow diagram

  • Use <pre> for ASCII, never <div class="whitespace-pre">. Prettier reformats the latter and destroys the layout; <pre> is immune. This is a hard rule — violating it ships a broken page.
  • ASCII boxes + arrows showing the user's journey through the scope.
  • Colour-code inline: one colour for existing-mocked nodes, a distinct colour for gaps (preferably the project's "action" colour so the user's eye goes there), a muted colour for adjacent/context surfaces.
  • Mark gaps with an inline glyph like 🆕 GAP so they're scannable at speed.

4. Existing mocks (side-by-side)

  • Heading with a status badge ("✓ ships with …").
  • Responsive grid (typically 3-column on desktop, collapsing to single column on mobile). One cell per mock.
  • Each cell contains:

- Small badge + filename header. - Mock name (serif display). - Short description (1–2 sentences). - <iframe> at fixed height (780px works well for primary mocks, 640px for adjacent; adjust to project). - "Open in new tab ↗" link. - Audit checklist card — prompts for each impeccable discipline relevant to the mock: /critique, /clarify, /audit, /polish, /adapt, /harden, /distill. Plus any scope-specific questions ("discoverability of edit affordance?", "loading state mocked?").

5. Transition / state gaps

When something should be mocked but isn't obvious (e.g. a post-action toast, a success confirmation) flag it as an "? unclear" section with a bullet list of brainstorm questions. Better to surface ambiguity than let it slip.

6. Gaps to fill

  • Heading with a "🆕 produce next" badge.
  • Responsive grid. One cell per gap.
  • Visually distinct background / border (use the project's "action" tint).
  • Each cell:

- Badge + filename for the mock to be produced. - Serif display name. - Description of what the mock represents. - Brainstorm questions — unordered list. Each bullet = one explicit decision that must be made before drafting the mock. Cover: entry point(s), shape (sheet / dialog / page), field list, edge/error states, integration with existing patterns, destructive-action semantics, cancel behaviour.

7. Upstream / adjacent (for context)

  • Smaller iframes.
  • 3-column grid.
  • Label each as "not this scope, here for context".
  • Used for surfaces the user jumps INTO from this scope (detail pages that populate later) or OUT OF (upstream flows).

8. Proposed sequence

Ordered list describing the steps from this storyboard to code-lands:

  1. User reviews this page; approves existing mocks or flags concrete fixes.
  2. Answer the brainstorm questions on each gap card.
  3. Produce the gap mocks via /impeccable craft + run them through the design pipeline (/shape/critique/layout/clarify/polish, plus /adapt for responsive + /harden for edge states).
  4. Apply any fixes to existing mocks the audit flagged.
  5. Commit mocks + audit note. Code starts.

9. Footer

Meta line: scope code · last-updated date · pair-read links.

Style conventions

Use the project's existing design tokens — do not invent new ones. If the project has a Tailwind config with brand colours, typography, and shadow tokens, import/reuse those so the storyboard looks native. Specifically:

  • Colours: primary action (for gap cards + existing-mock badges), text, background, "done/exists" confirmation, and "uncertain/?" states. Four-to-five tokens cover everything.
  • Fonts: a serif for display (page title, section headings, mock names) and a sans for body. Every storyboard has the same typographic rhythm.
  • Badges: sage for "exists", coral/primary for "gap", gold/amber for "uncertain" — or whatever the project's palette calls those.
  • Iframe frame: fixed height, border, rounded corners, light shadow. Same visual weight across the grid.
  • Container: max-w-7xl mx-auto for the outer width so the page has breathing room on ultra-wide monitors.

Match the local codebase's existing mock or index-page style. Copy the <style> block from a sibling mock rather than re-inventing.

Prettier safety

Three rules learned the hard way:

  1. Always wrap ASCII / multi-line preformatted content in <pre>. Prettier reformats HTML inside <div class="whitespace-pre"> and destroys the layout. <pre> is immune.
  2. Don't fight markdown table column widths. Write the table; let prettier realign it; commit the realigned version.
  3. Run prettier --write on the storyboard file before committing. The pre-commit hook catches this anyway but it's faster to format up-front.

Convention integration

After producing the storyboard:

  1. Link it from the project's mocks manifest or index page under an "Active audits" or similar section so it's discoverable.
  2. Reference it from the decision-record markdown (the plan file, audit note, or PR description) as the visual companion.
  3. Reference it from the item / feature README(s) in the "Design" section.
  4. The storyboard supersedes scattered "here's the hub-list mock, click here for the archive confirm" links. One place, always.

Non-negotiables

  • Live iframes, not screenshots. The mocks must render — reviewers need to click, scroll, and see real behaviour. Screenshots go stale instantly; embedded iframes stay current.
  • Gaps must have brainstorm questions. A gap card without questions is dead weight. Each gap is a forcing function to make decisions before drafting.
  • One page, not a tree. Scrolling through one page is cheaper than navigating a tree of links. If the scope is so big the page becomes unreadable, split by sub-flow but keep each split to one page.
  • Checklist is genuine, not decorative. Every item on the audit checklist corresponds to a real design discipline. The reviewer uses the checklist to guide review; the agent uses it to guide follow-up work. Don't list /critique if /critique won't actually run.

Anti-patterns

Using <img> screenshots of the mocks. Screenshots go stale the moment the underlying mock changes. Iframes stay current. Every storyboard uses <iframe> for embedded mocks.

"TODO: add brainstorm questions" on a gap card. A gap without answered questions is a gap without the skill's value. Brainstorm now or remove the card.

Inventing bespoke design tokens for the storyboard. The storyboard should feel native to the project. Use the same Tailwind colours / fonts / shadows as the underlying mocks.

Navigation tree instead of one scrollable page. The storyboard's value is "everything in one place". A tree of sub-pages defeats that. Split only when the single page becomes unreadably long, and document the split reason.

<div class="whitespace-pre"> for ASCII diagrams. Prettier reformats inner HTML and destroys the diagram. Use <pre> every time.

Producing new mocks before the storyboard is reviewed. The storyboard's brainstorm questions drive decisions. Drafting mocks first pre-commits to answers that may be wrong.

Invocation

User says /storyboard <scope> or asks one of the trigger phrases (see frontmatter description). The skill:

  1. Reads the relevant item/feature docs + any existing mock manifest entry.
  2. Gathers existing mocks, flow, gaps, adjacent surfaces.
  3. Drafts brainstorm questions for each gap (doesn't answer them — the user will).
  4. Produces the HTML file at the canonical project path.
  5. Updates the mocks manifest / index page with the featured link.
  6. Reports back with the file path + brief summary so the user can open it in a browser.

Related skills

  • impeccable family (/shape, /critique, /layout, /clarify, /audit, /polish, /adapt, /harden, /distill) — the skill's audit checklists reference these; the gap-mock production step runs them.
  • planning — plans live at project root; the storyboard artifact supplements the plan's decision record.
  • expectations — after the storyboard audit surfaces learnings worth preserving, capture them into CLAUDE.md / ADRs.

Quick Reference

/storyboard <scope>
│
├─► GATHER
│   ├─ Scope code + title
│   ├─ Existing mocks in scope
│   ├─ User flow (sequence of states + transitions)
│   ├─ Gaps (new mocks needed)
│   └─ Adjacent surfaces (upstream / downstream context)
│
├─► PRODUCE (<scope>-audit.html)
│   ├─ Breadcrumb
│   ├─ Header (scope code + title + link row)
│   ├─ Flow diagram (<pre>, colour-coded, glyphs for gaps)
│   ├─ Existing mocks (3-column grid, iframes + audit checklists)
│   ├─ State gaps ("? unclear" + brainstorm questions)
│   ├─ Gaps to fill (brainstorm-question cards per gap)
│   ├─ Upstream/adjacent (context iframes at smaller height)
│   ├─ Proposed sequence (ordered list)
│   └─ Footer (meta)
│
├─► WIRE UP
│   ├─ Link from mocks manifest / index page
│   ├─ Reference from plan / audit markdown
│   └─ Reference from feature README
│
└─► USER REVIEWS
    ├─ Answers brainstorm questions per gap
    ├─ Approves existing mocks (or flags fixes)
    └─ Skill produces gap mocks via /impeccable craft

Rules of thumb:

  • Live iframes always. No screenshots.
  • Every gap has brainstorm questions.
  • One page, not a tree.
  • <pre> for ASCII. Never <div class="whitespace-pre">.
  • Use the project's existing design tokens.

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Codex

33.87%
按下载量换算33

Claude

28.44%
按下载量换算28

Cursor

19.27%
按下载量换算19

Gemini CLI

8.62%
按下载量换算8

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

权限需确认

当前来源未能明确判断权限范围,默认进入异常复核队列。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills