There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
pr-assets: dialog wizard template screenshots Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
pr-assets: screenshots for the inline wizard template PR Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
vibe-test: scores 2026-08-31
vibe-test: scores 2026-08-30
Revert "docs: define adaptive overlay ownership" This reverts commit be5bd275cb15a8d7359545ad29df674e1f992273.
Revert "docs: audit mobile sheet browser chrome" This reverts commit 2a2745b29a21bc024e7f33e6bcc4bb0e43cd50a4.
docs: audit mobile sheet browser chrome
docs: define adaptive overlay ownership
vibe-test: scores 2026-08-29
docs: clarify progress contrast applicability
docs: refine component contrast guidance
Refresh form-wizard-vertical shots after Card/AspectRatio refactor Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
Refresh remaining form-wizard-vertical shots Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
Refresh form-wizard-vertical shots after heading fix Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
Add form-wizard-vertical PR screenshots Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
Add PR 5659 Stepper comparison screenshots
pr-assets: form-wizard focus-on-block footer Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
Add form-wizard PR screenshots Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
pr-assets: Stepper narrow-collapse and checkout-wizard screenshots for #5659 / #5660
vibe-test: scores 2026-08-28
docs: require contrast applicability decisions
docs: define card contrast audit rules
docs: define card contrast applicability
docs: refine component contrast rubric
Clarify rendered contrast verification
Clarify button loading and contrast rubric
Template rubric 1.3 — stop scoring slug length The 16-character page slug ceiling added in 1.1 was the wrong call, for two reasons the same vibe test already supplied. The name axis is inert. Ablating name entirely changed 0 of 36 battery results, and a full rename of all 51 page templates left 35 of 36 rankings identical. A ceiling that pushes contributors to rename buys essentially nothing on natural-language retrieval. And every slug past the line belongs to a family. All seven are dashboard-* or documentation-*, where the shared prefix groups the family in template --list. That legibility is worth more than the substring reach a long slug forfeits. Renaming is also a genuine breaking change: astryx template resolves by exact match on the directory name, there is no alias, deprecation or redirect mechanism anywhere, and the codemod system cannot cover it — a copied page.tsx holds no reference to its own slug, and upgrade selects transforms by @astryxdesign/core version while templates ship in the CLI. The rubric should not push anyone toward that for a signal that does not move. §5c no longer scores length, so a long slug can earn the naming point. Length survives as guidance under Naming a Template. Point values, category maxima and the 100-point total are unchanged. Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
Use American spelling in the description lens table Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
Template rubric 1.2 — describe templates by structure, not by their sample data Review feedback on the description convention: the differentiator was leaning on content-type nouns, and data is interchangeable. Swap customers for invoices and it is the same template, so the data cannot be what distinguishes one from another — and a fixture-led description locks the template to the sample it ships with. Someone building an invoice or a job record needs detail-page exactly and matched none of its order vocabulary. Writing the description now asks for four structural lenses — layout, container, data shape, behavior — with domain nouns demoted to interchangeable examples, and adds the sibling comparison as the most discriminating sentence usually available. Worked example carries all three versions of detail-page, including the noun-led wrong turn, since that is the easy mistake to make. Also documents that -able adjectives and verb forms never match each other under the stemmer: resizable never answers a query for resize. Minor bump rather than patch because §5b now caps a description at 2 when sample-data nouns are doing the separating, which can change a score. Point values, category maxima and the 100-point total are unchanged. Measured over the same 36-query battery: structure-led descriptions scored 32/36 top-1 against 23/36 noun-led. Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
Template rubric 1.1 — score the naming and description conventions Doc Metadata (10) now splits into fields present and accurate (6), description convention (3), and naming convention (1). Previously all 10 graded field presence and naming was an explicit non-scored soft signal, so a template could score 10/10 on a three-word description like "Data table with actions" — the single worst thing you can do for retrieval. The weighting follows what each is measured to be worth. A 36-query field ablation found `description` the only metadata field whose removal degrades retrieval (top-1 15->9, top-3 25->18), while the name axis decided 0 of 36 queries and removing auto-extracted keywords or category actually improved precision. Also adds to Naming a Template: the 16-character page-slug ceiling (build only substring-matches a name when the shorter side covers >=50% of the longer, so a 16-char slug needs an 8-letter query word), and the four-slot description shape with the five rules the scorer forces. Category set, category maxima and the 100-point total are unchanged, so existing ledger rows stay schema-valid. Doc Metadata subscores are not comparable across 1 and 1.1; per-row rubricVersion is left alone so existing audits keep their v1 provenance. Source: internal/vibe-tests/template-naming-test/PLAN.md Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>