Community-proven website development workflow using AI coding agents. Use when building websites with Claude/Codex/AI agents to avoid common pitfalls like vague requirements, endless refactoring cycles, and poor UX. Triggers on phrases like "build a website", "make a site", "create a web app", "frontend project", or when user expresses frustration with AI-generated websites.
Scanned 9/12/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add aibot88/sec_skill_store --skill nexmaker-fab-zwu-2026-2-005-. --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Nexmaker Fab Zwu 2026 2 005 .?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/aibot88-nexmaker-fab-zwu-2026-2-005)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: community-web-dev
description: Community-proven website development workflow using AI coding agents. Use when building websites with Claude/Codex/AI agents to avoid common pitfalls like vague requirements, endless refactoring cycles, and poor UX. Triggers on phrases like "build a website", "make a site", "create a web app", "frontend project", or when user expresses frustration with AI-generated websites.
---
# Community Website Development Skill
AI coding agents (Claude, Codex, etc.) excel at implementation but are terrible at mind-reading. This skill provides a battle-tested workflow to get human-friendly, production-ready websites.
## Core Principle: Research → Spec → Ship
Never skip stages. Each stage prevents the next stage from becoming a disaster.
---
## Stage 1: Research (Don't Write Code Yet)
**Goal:** Understand the landscape before committing to a direction.
### Prompt Template
```
I want to build [describe your website/app].
Before writing any code, help me research:
1. Find 3 excellent reference websites with similar functionality
- Analyze their information architecture (navigation, content flow)
- Note their visual style (colors, typography, spacing)
- Study their interaction patterns (animations, feedback, error handling)
2. Identify common user pain points in this type of website
- What do users complain about most?
- What features are often implemented poorly?
3. List technical decisions I'll need to make:
- Framework/library choices
- State management approach
- Styling strategy
- Potential technical debt areas
4. Give me a "reality check" - what usually goes wrong?
```
### Why This Works
- Forces AI to analyze existing solutions rather than inventing from scratch
- Surfaces UX considerations before you're locked into code
- Identifies technical pitfalls early (e.g., "this approach doesn't scale")
---
## Stage 2: Spec (Write the Blueprint)
**Goal:** Transform fuzzy ideas into concrete, testable requirements.
### Prompt Template
```
Based on the research above, create a technical specification:
## 1. Core Features (Priority Order)
List features from MVP → Full Feature Set. Be specific:
- ❌ "User profiles"
- ✅ "User can upload avatar, edit bio (max 500 chars), view public profile"
## 2. Page Structure
Provide an ASCII sitemap or wireframe:
```
Homepage
├── Hero section (tagline + CTA)
├── Features grid (3 cards)
└── Footer
Dashboard
├── Sidebar navigation
├── Main content area
└── Notification panel
```
## 3. Visual Direction
- Color scheme: [primary/secondary/accent]
- Typography: [font choices]
- Overall feel: [minimal/bold/playful/professional]
- Reference: "Like [site X] but with [difference]"
## 4. Technical Stack
- Framework: [React/Vue/Svelte/etc]
- Styling: [CSS modules/Tailwind/styled-components]
- State: [Context/Zustand/Redux]
- Build tool: [Vite/Next.js/etc]
## 5. Acceptance Criteria
Define "done" for each feature:
- [ ] Dark mode toggle works without flash
- [ ] Mobile layout doesn't break below 375px
- [ ] Form validation shows inline errors
- [ ] Loading states for all async actions
```
### Red Flags to Avoid
- Vague descriptions: "modern", "clean", "user-friendly"
- Missing edge cases: What happens on error? Empty state? Slow connection?
- No visual references: "I'll know it when I see it" = guaranteed rework
---
## Stage 3: Ship (Incremental Delivery)
**Goal:** Build in small, verifiable chunks. Never the "full website" in one shot.
### Milestone-Based Approach
**Milestone 1: Static Shell**
```
Build only the HTML structure and CSS styling:
- Static homepage with placeholder content
- Responsive layout working
- Dark mode toggle functional (even if just placeholder)
NO JavaScript logic yet. Just structure and style.
```
**Milestone 2: Core Interaction**
```
Add ONE core feature:
- If it's a blog: Show article list + single article view
- If it's a dashboard: Show data table + filter
- If it's an e-commerce: Product grid + product detail
Keep it read-only. No auth, no mutations.
```
**Milestone 3: Full Feature Set**
```
Add remaining features one by one:
- Authentication (if needed)
- Forms and mutations
- Edge cases and error states
```
**Milestone 4: Polish**
```
- Loading states
- Error handling
- Animations and micro-interactions
- Performance optimization
- Accessibility audit
```
### Why Incremental?
- Catch design/UX issues early when they're cheap to fix
- Validate technical choices before committing
- Maintain momentum with frequent wins
- AI performs better on focused, bounded tasks
---
## Common Anti-Patterns (Don't Do These)
### ❌ "Build me a website like [famous site]"
- AI copies structure but misses the UX subtleties
- Results in "technically works, feels wrong"
### ❌ "Make it look professional"
- Subjective terms = endless revision cycles
- Instead: Provide 3 specific visual references
### ❌ One-shot full implementation
- "Generate the complete React app with auth, database, payments..."
- Results in Frankenstein code that technically runs but is unmaintainable
### ❌ Skipping the "boring" parts
- Error handling, loading states, empty states, responsive edge cases
- These differentiate amateur from professional work
---
## Quick-Start Checklist
Before starting any website project:
- [ ] Can I describe the target user in one sentence?
- [ ] Do I have 3 visual references I can point to?
- [ ] Have I listed the MVP features vs nice-to-have?
- [ ] Do I know what "done" looks like for each feature?
- [ ] Am I prepared to review static HTML before adding JS?
If any answer is "no", go back to Research or Spec stage.
---
## Emergency Escape Hatches
**If you're already in refactoring hell:**
1. **Stop adding features** - Freeze scope immediately
2. **Take a screenshot** - Document current state
3. **Write a reset spec** - What's the minimum that needs to work?
4. **Scrap and rebuild from spec** - Counter-intuitive but faster than patching
**If the AI keeps missing your vision:**
- You're being too abstract. Give concrete examples.
- "Not like that" → "See [site X]? Do [specific thing] like them."
**If you have 47 "small" fixes:**
- That's not fixes, that's "the spec was incomplete"
- Go back to Stage 2 and write proper acceptance criteria
---
## Summary
| Stage | Output | Time Investment |
|-------|--------|-----------------|
| Research | Reference analysis + tech decisions | 10-15 min |
| Spec | Detailed blueprint | 15-20 min |
| Ship | Working code (incremental) | 30-60 min per milestone |
**Total:** 1-2 hours of planning saves 5-10 hours of refactoring.
Remember: AI amplifies your clarity. Vague input = garbage output. Specific input = magic.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!