--- name: design-review type: workflow description: "Reviews UI/UX designs, wireframes, and design systems for usability, accessibility, consistency, and implementation feasibility. Use when reviewing design specs or when the user mentions design review, UX review, or design feedback." argument-hint: "[path-to-design-doc]" user-invocable: true allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep context: fork agent: ux-designer effort: 2 when_to_use: "When reviewing a design or feature specification document for completeness, consistency, and implementability" --- When this skill is invoked: 1. **Read the target design document** in full. 2. **Read the master CLAUDE.md** to understand project context and standards. 3. **Read related design documents** referenced or implied by the target doc (check `design/docs/` for related systems). 4. **Evaluate against the Design Document Standard checklist**: - [ ] Has Overview section (one-paragraph summary) - [ ] Has User Fantasy section (intended feeling) - [ ] Has Detailed Rules section (unambiguous mechanics) - [ ] Has Formulas section (all math defined with variables) - [ ] Has Edge Cases section (unusual situations handled) - [ ] Has Dependencies section (other systems listed) - [ ] Has Tuning Knobs section (configurable values identified) - [ ] Has Acceptance Criteria section (testable success conditions) 5. **Check for internal consistency**: - Do the formulas produce values that match the described behavior? - Do edge cases contradict the main rules? - Are dependencies bidirectional (does the other system know about this one)? 6. **Check for implementability**: - Are the rules precise enough for a programmer to implement without guessing? - Are there any "hand-wave" sections where details are missing? - Are performance implications considered? 7. **Check for cross-system consistency**: - Does this conflict with any existing mechanic? - Does this create unintended interactions with other systems? - Is this consistent with the product's established tone and pillars? 8. **Output the review** in this format: ``` ## Design Review: [Document Title] ### Completeness: [X/8 sections present] [List missing sections] ### Consistency Issues [List any internal or cross-system contradictions] ### Implementability Concerns [List any vague or unimplementable sections] ### Balance Concerns [List any obvious balance risks] ### Recommendations [Prioritized list of improvements] ### Verdict: [APPROVED / NEEDS REVISION / MAJOR REVISION NEEDED] ``` 9. **Contextual next step recommendations**: - If the document being reviewed is `product-concept.md` or `product-pillars.md`: - Check if `design/docs/systems-index.md` exists - If it does NOT exist, add to Recommendations: > "This concept is ready for systems decomposition. Run `/map-systems` > to break it down into individual systems with dependencies and priorities, > then write per-system PRDs." - If the document is an individual system PRD: - Check if the systems index references this system - If verdict is APPROVED: suggest "Update the systems index status for this system to 'Approved'." - If verdict is NEEDS REVISION or MAJOR REVISION NEEDED: suggest "Update the systems index status for this system to 'In Review'." - Note: This skill is read-only. The user (or `/design-system`) must perform the actual status update in the systems index. ## Protocol - **Question**: Auto-starts from argument (path to design doc) - **Options**: Skip — single review path - **Decision**: Skip — verdict is advisory - **Draft**: Full review shown in conversation only - **Approval**: Skip — read-only; this skill never writes files ## Output Deliver exactly: - **Completeness score** (X/8 required sections present) - **Consistency issues** — contradictions or undefined terms (or "None") - **Implementability concerns** — sections too vague to build from (or "None") - **Verdict**: `APPROVED` / `NEEDS REVISION` / `MAJOR REVISION NEEDED` - **Next skill** — one recommended follow-up (e.g., `/map-systems`, update systems index)