Prototype

---
name: prototype
description: >
  Build a throwaway prototype to answer a design question. Use when the user wants to sanity-check
  whether a state model or logic feels right, or explore what a UI should look like.
allowed-tools: Read Grep Glob Bash Write Edit
compatibility: >
  For disposable exploration that answers one design question. Route production implementation to
  implement and durable architecture decisions to codebase-design.
metadata:
  tags: throwaway-prototype, design-question, state-model, ui-exploration, spike
  platforms: Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, Codex
  version: "1.0"
  source: mattpocock/skills
  upstream_commit: 3cca18b368ae95cdbdebbff572ccafa662551015
  invocation: model-invoked
---

# Prototype

Build a throwaway prototype to answer a design question. Use when the user wants to sanity-check whether a state model or logic feels right, or explore what a UI should look like.

This skill is imported from `mattpocock/skills` (MIT) and is **model-invoked** upstream.

## When to use this skill

- Build a throwaway prototype to answer a design question.
- Use when the user wants to sanity-check whether a state model or logic feels right, or explore what a UI should look like.

## Instructions

## Prototype

A prototype is **throwaway code that answers a question**. The question decides the shape.

### Pick a branch

Identify which question is being answered, using the user's prompt, the surrounding code, or by asking if the user is around:

- **"Does this logic / state model feel right?"** → [LOGIC.md](LOGIC.md). Build a single shareable HTML file (free-play buttons plus tabbed guided walkthroughs) that pushes the state machine through cases that are hard to reason about on paper, and that a non-developer can drive.
- **"What should this look like?"** → [UI.md](UI.md). Generate several radically different UI variations on a single route, switchable via a URL search param and a floating bottom bar.

The two branches produce very different artifacts, so getting this wrong wastes the whole prototype. If the question is genuinely ambiguous and the user isn't reachable, default to whichever branch better matches the surrounding code (a backend module → logic; a page or component → UI) and state the assumption at the top of the prototype.

### Rules that apply to both

1. **Throwaway from day one, and clearly marked as such.** Locate the prototype code close to where it will actually be used (next to the module or page it's prototyping for) so context is obvious, but name it so a casual reader can see it's a prototype, not production. For throwaway UI routes, obey whatever routing convention the project already uses; don't invent a new top-level structure.
2. **Trivial to run.** A UI prototype starts from one command in the project's task runner: `pnpm <name>`, `python <path>`, `bun <path>`, etc. A logic demo is a single HTML file the user double-clicks. Either way, no thinking required to start it.
3. **No persistence by default.** State lives in memory. Persistence is the thing the prototype is _checking_, not something it should depend on. If the question explicitly involves a database, hit a scratch DB or a local file with a clear "PROTOTYPE, wipe me" name.
4. **Skip the polish.** No tests, no error handling beyond what makes the prototype _runnable_, no abstractions. The point is to learn something fast.
5. **Surface the state.** After every action (logic) or on every variant switch (UI), print or render the full relevant state so the user can see what changed.
6. **Capture it when done.** Fold any validated decision into the real code, then capture the prototype itself as a **primary source**: commit it to a throwaway branch, out of main, and leave a context pointer to that branch on the implementation issue. Capture the answer too (the verdict and the question it settled) in the issue or a commit. The main branch keeps only the validated decision.

## Examples

- Apply this skill to one narrow scope first, confirm the output matches the shape described above, then widen to the full task.
- When a step needs a fact from the repository or the environment, look it up instead of asking the user for it.

## Best practices

- Keep the upstream procedure intact; record deviations explicitly instead of silently improvising.
- Stop and hand control back to the user at every decision point this skill marks as theirs.
- Prefer small reversible changes, and state assumptions rather than burying them.

## References

- Upstream skill: `mattpocock/skills` `skills/engineering/prototype/SKILL.md` (commit `3cca18b`, MIT)
- Companion doc: [references/LOGIC.md](references/LOGIC.md)
- Companion doc: [references/UI.md](references/UI.md)
- Project standards: `.agent-skills/skill-standardization/SKILL.md`
- Validator script: `.agent-skills/skill-standardization/scripts/validate_skill.sh`