Here's a list of browser features the skills will tell your agent to use that are stable in Chrome but not supported by Firefox and Safari:

  CSS @function
  CSS calc-size()
  CSS interpolate-size
  CSS corner-shape
  CSS border-shape
  CSS flex-wrap: balance
  CSS text-fit
  CSS text-decoration-skip-spaces
  CSS scroll-axis-lock
  CSS scroll-target-group
  CSS :target-current
  CSS scroll-initial-target
  CSS container scroll-state queries
  scrollsnapchange event
  scrollsnapchanging event
  HTML focusgroup
  Element.startViewTransition()
  CSS view-transition-scope
  Interest Invokers (interestfor)
  LanguageModel (Prompt API)
  LanguageDetector
  Translator
  Summarizer API
  Window.fetchLater()
  Speculation Rules API
  Long Animation Frames API
  VisibilityStateEntry
  PerformanceSoftNavigation
  InteractionContentfulPaint
  Connection-Allowlist
  CSS url() integrity() modifier
  HTML meta name="text-scale"
  HTML template for
  HTML processing instructions
  PasswordCredential
  Promise-returning scroll methods
  Web App Origin Migration
  Local Network Access permissions
  Request.targetAddressSpace
  beforeinstallprompt event

To be fair, the skills also recommend ~11 features not supported by Chrome itself. And the project does seem concerned with compatibility: "Guiding models to use sensible, lightweight fallbacks."

Distribution suggestion: in addition to the npm packages you have right now, set up GitHub Pages to publish a markdown index document of the skills at https://googlechrome.github.io/modern-web-guidance-src/skill... (currently a 404)

That index page should link to plain markdown versions of all of the documents, and should be designed for search with grep to find the right answers.

That way I don't have to install anything at all - provided my agent has the ability to make HTTP requests I can tell it "Look for tips on https://googlechrome.github.io/modern-web-guidance-src/skill..." and it will fetch the index, then navigate to the most relevant documents - no MCP or npm or installation required at all.

Chrome already has too much power in the browser standards world. The last thing we need is everyone's LLMs to follow Chrome team's guidance on how to do web development. This road leads back to "To view this site, please view in [DOMINANT BROWSER]"

Amazing! I'm just writing an article about how Alex Russell's quote about 'React being a legacy technology' got, unfortunately, totally ignored.

And now this just fell in my lap! Some of the arguments I wanted to make seem to be provide here. Didn't have a chance to take a proper look at it, but it looks very promising and nice!

Thank you!

"Best Practices" are pretty much dead in the AI era. Pretty soon no one is going to read any of the code AI produces and that's a scary thought.

Planning to give this one a wide berth.

The more "legacy code" is getting written everyday the more the web will be forced to remain backwards compatible...

NO THANK YOU. Do not want my agents to contribute to the Chrome monoculture. Chrome is the new IE6.

I asked my agent to look at that list and only apply things that work on chrome, Firefox, safari iOS and safari macos

Came up with a good list for my project

I want the opposite of this. I want compatible code -- which is really hard, when there are so many eras to target. So far AI has done a great job of finding that sweet spot -- why would I want a tool that encourages the agent to write less compatible code?

Finally.

This is exactly what I need when I need it. The amount of pull requests I reviewed with a mess of codes that can be switched to 2 lines of modern features made me write such tools myself, only half assed since I have other things to do.

I added this a few months ago and Claude Doctor has not removed it. It must be working and getting use.

Paul Irish?? There's a name I haven't though about in ages! I remember following you on Twitter and your website was full of amazing information. Hope you're doing well!

That's pretty cool!

On the other hand, a bit sad: programming nowadays is just arranging a bunch of Markdown files, possibly generated by another bunch of models.

Not so exciting, in the end.

More Chromish on web? No thanks.

These skills look better than most, but running my code through the legacy scan only found two issues. So while I still think training beats skills, I'm sure this has its place, especially with weaker models.

I find this very useful as a human as well

I recommend saying "contemporary" or "suggested" for transient proposals like this. Having modern change every few years is ambiguous and cliche .

These concepts are new, so no one knows if they are any good. They're not modern -- who knows if they will even be put to use?

"contemporary", "proposed", "suggested", "compatible" are better fit. I wouldn't dare use "advanced" because many APIs and proposals actually regress earlier behavior.

What's the best way to introduce this to a Gemini chat?

This is a great idea. I think while so much was being built out in the JavaScript ecosystem, awareness about the equivalent feature releases that were done to HTML, CSS, web components, and other technologies didn't keep pace.

Of course, it's not perfectly implemented the same in every browser, but that's nothing new.

[flagged]

[dead]

[flagged]

[flagged]

I use Firefox after Chrome decided to become a bit of a pain to use on my powerful computers. I was unsure how bias the skills were for Chrome exclusive features, so I decided to ask ChatGPT to analyse the repo. I liked the answer it gave, so here it is: https://chatgpt.com/share/6af3712a-03cc-83eb-ad1f-66dd11c886...

I treat all my code as some kind of stochastic machinery. So atleast one stage, I'd just tell an agent to go through and follow the guide.

But I'd not inject all this fluff into the wheels of the machine because it'd just take the "average" of these practices which would be just as useless.