Walkthrough

Generate a concise, click-by-click manual walkthrough of the current branch's user-facing changes, so the human orchestrator can exercise the feature in a browser before the formal /code-review. Seeing a feature work is faster than reading code or a PR description for catching UX problems.

This skill does not modify code or perform code review. It renders the walkthrough as a single self-contained HTML file — with click-to-copy commands, URLs, and logins — in both modes. By default it writes that HTML to the project's local tmp/ as scratch and opens it. With --publish it also uploads the HTML to the project's configured QA host (when one is declared in the project's CLAUDE.md) and posts a PR comment linking to it, with a Markdown rendition as a collapsible fallback (Markdown is the only thing a GitHub comment can render inline).

Where it sits in the workflow — two slots:

• Generate (default) — run after /create-pr and before /code-review, and re-run as needed. The orchestrator's iterative pre-flight check.
• Publish (--publish) — run once after /code-review and any review fixes, just before merge (or after merge, to backfill a walkthrough that was missed). Posts the final walkthrough to the PR so the QA tester can follow it after deploy.

Not the same as:

• /debrief — a heavy architecture and test-coverage write-up for milestones.
• /qa-handoff — a broad, committed QA guide for a whole phase. /walkthrough --publish is the per-PR counterpart: one change, posted to the PR.

Command Options

• --publish: Post the final walkthrough as a comment on the PR, regenerating it first so it matches the code under review. Run once, after review — normally just before merge, but it also works on an already-merged PR to backfill a missed walkthrough. See the Publishing section.

Your task

If invoked with --publish, follow the Publishing the final walkthrough section below instead. Otherwise, generate a new walkthrough:

1. Identify the change set

• If a PR number or branch is given as an argument, use it. Otherwise use the current branch against its base (main/master).
• Get the diff and changed files: gh pr diff <N> for a PR, or git diff <base>...HEAD.
• Note the open PR number for the branch, if any (gh pr view).

2. Gate: is a walkthrough applicable?

Classify the diff:

• User-facing — changes to views/templates, controllers, routes, view helpers, JavaScript/Stimulus, mailers and mailer views, UI-facing i18n strings, or front-end components.
• Not user-facing — only models, lib, service objects, migrations with no UX effect, tests, CI config, dependency bumps, or docs.

If the diff has no user-facing surface, STOP. Do not generate a document. Tell the user plainly:

> No user-facing changes detected in this PR — a browser walkthrough doesn't apply. Proceed to /code-review.

If the change is user-facing — or a mix where the UI surface is worth exercising — continue.

3. Map flows, personas, and credentials

• From the changed views/controllers/routes, determine which screens and user journeys changed.
• Identify every user role/persona that touches the changed flows.
• Find concrete test accounts for each persona by reading the project's seed data (e.g. db/seeds.rb), fixtures, or factories. Use exact credentials. Reserved-example logins (@example.com and friends) render as click-to-copy controls in the HTML; real-looking ones become plain-text placeholders — see Credentials in published artifacts under Publishing.
• Determine the local login mechanism by reading the project (password, magic link via a dev mail catcher, a dev-only shortcut) and describe it literally.
• Read CLAUDE.md for project-specific concerns to fold in: default locale and bilingual requirements, mobile-first/viewport rules, theme, accessibility.

4. Determine setup specifics

• The command to start the app and the URL to confirm it boots.
• Whether the diff adds migrations, env vars, credentials, or dependencies the user must apply first — list them concretely, never "some changes."
• Whether seed data needs loading or a reset.

5. Generate the walkthrough document

Plan the content using the principles below, then render it as a self-contained HTML file per Rendering the HTML artifact (the same renderer both modes use). Principles:

• One numbered Part per distinct flow or persona. Cover every affected persona.
• Steps are literal and clickable — the reader should never have to guess.
• Every step or part has an explicit ✅ expected result, precise enough that a deviation is obvious.
• Clearly label what is new in this PR versus pre-existing context shown to complete the picture.
• Fold in locale and responsive checks when the project's guardrails call for them.
• Call out anything in the change that is not browser-testable (e.g. a model validation behind a constrained UI) so the reader knows it is covered only by automated tests.
• Keep it brief — this is a pre-flight check, not exhaustive QA. Favor the highest-signal paths.
• If you notice something that looks broken while writing the walkthrough, flag it to the user directly — do not bury it as a test step.

6. Render, save, and surface

• Render the content as HTML following Rendering the HTML artifact below. This is the pre-review scratch copy, so omit the production-verification callout.
• Save to the project-local tmp/ directory — tmp/pr-<N>-walkthrough.html (or tmp/<branch-slug>-walkthrough.html if there is no PR). Not the system /tmp.
• This file is the orchestrator's scratch copy: not committed, not part of the PR. The PR comment posted later by --publish is the published snapshot.
• Open it for the user (open tmp/pr-<N>-walkthrough.html) and tell them the path.

7. Recommend the next step

> Exercise the walkthrough in the browser. If anything is off, fix it on the branch and re-run /walkthrough to refresh. When it looks right, proceed to /code-review — then publish the final version with /walkthrough --publish before merge.

Rendering the HTML artifact

Both modes render the walkthrough as a single self-contained HTML file using this skill's template.html and the shared house style. Same renderer; the only differences are called out inline.

• Read template.html (this skill's directory) for the structure and ../_shared/house-style.html for the look.
• Inline the shared house style — copy its <style> block in place of the first HOUSE STYLE marker in <head>, and its <script> block in place of the second marker before </body>. The output must be a single self-contained .html (no external assets).
• Strip every instructional comment from the output (the head how-to block and the body notes). The artifact must be clean — HTML comments don't nest, so a stray instructional comment can break rendering.
• Fill the metadata tokens: {{PROJECT}}, {{PR}}, {{PR_LINK}} (link to the PR), {{FEATURE}} (short feature name), {{BRANCH}}, {{COMMIT}} (short SHA), {{DATE}}, {{ESTIMATE}}. Before a PR exists, use the branch name and point {{PR_LINK}} at the branch.
• Launch-status callout (lifecycle-gated): for the default pre-review scratch copy, omit the entire .callout block. For the --publish (post-merge) version, determine the project's launch status from its CLAUDE.md § "QA Testing Policy" (the Launch status: flag), then include the matching .callout:
• Pre-launch, or no QA Testing Policy is declared → the production-verification callout (testers without a local environment may verify on the live site; its data is disposable). This is the template's default .callout.
• Post-launch → the local-dev-only callout instead: a warning that QA must run on a local dev checkout and must not be run against the live site, which holds real data. Emit no "verify on production" text. (See the template's comment for both snippets.)
• Every command, URL, and reserved-example login the reader will paste is a <button type="button" class="copy" data-copy="VALUE">VALUE</button> control (see Credentials in published artifacts). Only real/non-example credentials are the exception — render those as plain <code>&lt;your-admin-email&gt;</code>, never a copy control.

Reliable way to inline the bulky house style without hand-copying it: write the filled template with two sentinel lines where the markers sit, then splice the <style> and <script> blocks out of house-style.html into them with a short script. Extract by the exact tags (<style> … </style>, <script> … </script>) — house-style.html keeps its instructional comment tag-free precisely so this match is unambiguous.

• Verify before surfacing the artifact. The finished HTML must contain exactly one <style> and one <script>, with no instructional text leaked into the <head>. Grep the output for Inline the, Component vocabulary, EXTRACTION GUARDRAIL, or a stray --> before the first :root — any hit means a comment was captured instead of the real block. Re-extract by the exact tags and re-check. This has bitten us before; do not skip it.

Publishing the final walkthrough (--publish)

Run once, after /code-review and any review fixes — normally just before merge, but also valid on an already-merged PR to backfill a walkthrough that was missed. This renders the walkthrough as rich HTML, publishes it to the project's configured QA host (if any), and posts a PR comment with the live link and a collapsible Markdown fallback.

Credentials in published artifacts. A login may be a click-to-copy control only when it is a _reserved, non-routable example identity_: the email domain is an RFC 2606 reserved-for-documentation domain (example.com, example.net, example.org) or the .example TLD, and any accompanying password is an obviously-fake seed value (e.g. password), not a real secret. Such logins are documentation, not credentials — guaranteed unregisterable and non-deliverable — so publishing them as copy controls is safe and removes the single most repetitive step in any walkthrough (login). Anything else — a real or real-looking domain, an actual person's address, a live tenant, or a real password/token/API key — must be a plain-text placeholder (<code>&lt;your-admin-email&gt;</code>), never a copy control; pair it with a one-line note (local testers use the seeded login from db/seeds.rb; production testers use their own account). Never publish a real password, token, or secret in any form. The publish step stays human-gated regardless.

1. Resolve the PR. Use the PR number or branch given as an argument; otherwise find the PR for the current branch (gh pr view). The PR may be open or merged — both are valid publish targets. Only stop if no PR exists at all.
2. Re-run the gate. If the change is not user-facing (the Gate step above), there is nothing to publish — say so and stop.
3. Regenerate from the PR diff. Do not reuse a possibly-stale scratch file — review may have changed the code, and on a merged PR the branch is likely deleted. Rebuild the walkthrough content from gh pr diff <N> exactly as steps 1–5 describe, so the published copy matches the code that merged.
4. Build the Markdown fallback at tmp/pr-<N>-walkthrough-published.md (the project-local tmp/, not the system /tmp). This is not a standalone deliverable — it exists only because a GitHub PR comment renders Markdown, not a full HTML page. It fills the collapsible fallback in the comment, and it is the entire comment body when the project declares no QA Publish Target. Mirror the same content as the HTML. Prepend a short block-quote note at the very top, gated on launch status (see the launch-status callout rule): pre-launch (or no policy declared) → testers verifying on production should use the production app and their own account in place of the local server and seed logins, and the steps and expected results are identical; post-launch → this walkthrough is local-dev-only, do not run it against the live site (it holds real data) — reproduce it on a local checkout using the seed logins.
5. Render the HTML following Rendering the HTML artifact above. This is the post-merge version, so include the launch-status callout — the production-verification callout when the project is pre-launch, the local-dev-only callout when it is post-launch. Save to tmp/pr-<N>-walkthrough-published.html.
6. Build the PR-comment body at tmp/pr-<N>-walkthrough-comment.md: a <details> block wrapping the Markdown fallback so the link sits above and the Markdown is a collapsible fallback below.

markdown <details><summary>Markdown fallback</summary>

<contents of tmp/pr-<N>-walkthrough-published.md>

</details>

Do not include the link yourself — the publish pipeline prepends it.

1. Decide who to notify. A PR comment only notifies people already participating in the PR. If a QA reporter/tester should follow the walkthrough and is not already a participant (e.g. they were never @-mentioned in the PR body), @-mention their handle either inside the comment body file or as a one-line appendix at the end of it. Get the handle from the linked QA report's author, the PR body, or by asking the user; if in doubt, ask.
2. Confirm before posting. Show the final HTML (open it locally with open) and the comment-body Markdown to the user and get explicit approval. Posting a PR comment is outward-facing and notifies others — never post without a clear yes.
3. Publish. Call the shared publish pipeline. It resolves the project's QA Publish Target, uploads the HTML when one is declared, and posts the PR comment.

bash ~/.claude/skills/_shared/publish-artifact.sh \ --html tmp/pr-<N>-walkthrough-published.html \ --label "PR #<N> walkthrough" \ --pr <N> \ --comment-body tmp/pr-<N>-walkthrough-comment.md \ --md-fallback-only tmp/pr-<N>-walkthrough-published.md

Behaviour:

• Target declared → uploads the HTML, posts a PR comment with the live link above the collapsible Markdown body.
• Target undeclared → prints a warning, posts the Markdown body alone as the PR comment (the pre-HTML-pivot behaviour).

1. Confirm to the user that it is posted, share the Pages URL (if any) printed by the pipeline, and note who will be notified (PR participants, plus anyone @-mentioned).

Content outline (and Markdown PR-comment fallback)

The HTML (via template.html) is the primary artifact in both modes. This Markdown outline serves two remaining purposes: it's the content plan you fill in before rendering, and it's the exact shape of the collapsible PR-comment fallback that --publish posts (a GitHub comment renders Markdown, not the HTML page).

markdown
# PR #<N> — Manual Walkthrough: <short feature name>

A quick browser exercise of <feature> before formal review. ~<estimate> minutes.

## Setup

1. Start the app: `<command>` → <URL>
2. <Seed / reset / migration / dependency steps, or "No setup beyond the above.">
3. <Locale / viewport notes if relevant.>

**Logins** (<auth mechanism>):

| Role | Credentials | Notes |
|------|-------------|-------|
| <role> | <exact account> | <why this account> |

<One literal sentence on how to log in.>

## Part 1 — <flow name>  *(new in this PR)*

1. <Literal step.>
   ✅ <Expected result.>
2. ...

## Part N — <flow name>  *(pre-existing — for context)*

...

## Not browser-testable

<Anything covered only by automated tests, and why — or omit this section.>

## Cleanup

<How to restore state. Note the file is gitignored scratch — delete when done.>

Tone

• Practical and friendly. The reader is the orchestrator, not a client.
• Over-explain clicks rather than under-explain — zero ambiguity in the steps.
• Brevity over completeness: the highest-signal paths, not every permutation.