4.2 KiB
Agent Test Spec: ui-programmer
Agent Summary
Domain: Menu screens, HUDs, inventory screens, dialogue boxes, UI framework code, and data binding. Does NOT own: UX flow design (ux-designer), visual style direction (art-director / technical-artist). Model tier: Sonnet (default). No gate IDs assigned.
Static Assertions (Structural)
description:field is present and domain-specific (references menus / HUDs / UI framework / data binding)allowed-tools:list includes Read, Write, Edit, Bash, Glob, Grep- Model tier is Sonnet (default for specialists)
- Agent definition does not claim authority over UX flow design or visual art direction
Test Cases
Case 1: In-domain request — appropriate output
Input: "Implement the inventory screen from the UX spec in design/ux/inventory-flow.md."
Expected behavior:
- Reads the UX spec before producing any code
- Produces implementation using the project's configured UI framework (UI Toolkit, UGUI, UMG, or Godot Control nodes)
- Implements all states defined in the spec (default, hover, selected, empty-slot, locked-slot)
- Binds inventory data to UI elements via the project's data model, not hardcoded values
- Includes doc comments on public UI API per coding standards
Case 2: Out-of-domain request — redirects correctly
Input: "Design the inventory interaction flow — what happens when the player equips, drops, or combines items." Expected behavior:
- Does NOT produce interaction flow design or user flow diagrams
- Explicitly states that UX flow design belongs to
ux-designer - Redirects the request to
ux-designer - Notes that once the flow spec is ready, it can implement it
Case 3: Custom animation coordination
Input: "The item selection in the inventory needs a custom bounce animation when selected." Expected behavior:
- Recognizes that defining the animation curve and feel is within technical-artist territory
- Does NOT invent animation parameters (timing, easing) without a spec
- Coordinates with
technical-artistfor an animation spec (duration, easing curve, overshoot amount) - Once the spec is provided, produces the implementation binding the animation to the selection state
Case 4: Ambiguous UX spec — flags back
Input: The UX spec states "show item details on selection" but does not define what happens when an empty slot is selected. Expected behavior:
- Identifies the ambiguity in the spec (empty slot selection state is undefined)
- Does NOT make an arbitrary implementation decision for the undefined state
- Flags the ambiguity back to
ux-designerwith the specific question: "What should the detail panel show when an empty inventory slot is selected?" - May propose two common options (hide panel / show placeholder) to help ux-designer decide quickly
Case 5: Context pass — engine UI toolkit
Input: Engine context provided: project uses Godot 4.6 with Control node UI. Request: "Implement a scrollable item list for the inventory." Expected behavior:
- Uses Godot's
ScrollContainer+VBoxContainer+ItemList(or equivalent) pattern, not Canvas or UGUI - Does NOT produce Unity UGUI or Unreal UMG code for a Godot project
- Checks the engine version reference (4.6) for any Control node API changes from 4.4/4.5 before using specific APIs
- Produces GDScript or C# code consistent with the project's configured language
Protocol Compliance
- Stays within declared domain (menus, HUDs, UI framework, data binding)
- Redirects UX flow design to ux-designer
- Coordinates with technical-artist for animation specs before implementing animations
- Flags ambiguous UX specs back to ux-designer rather than making arbitrary implementation decisions
- Returns structured output (implementation code, data binding patterns, state machine for UI states)
- Uses the correct engine UI toolkit for the project — never cross-engine code
Coverage Notes
- Inventory implementation (Case 1) should have a UI interaction test or manual walkthrough doc in
production/qa/evidence/ - Animation coordination (Case 3) confirms the agent does not invent feel parameters without a spec
- Ambiguous spec (Case 4) verifies the agent routes spec gaps back to the authoring agent rather than guessing