# Design With Me > Collaborate with a product manager on UI design, from a vague feature idea through discussable HTML wireframes to real component previews using project tokens. Use for iterative design conversations and turning an agreed wireframe into an interactive UI, rather than routine implementation of an already complete specification. - Skill: `akarachen/design-with-me` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 15 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add akarachen/design-with-me` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/akarachen/design-with-me/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Web & Frontend - Author: akarachen (https://skillmd.com/u/akarachen) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/akarachen/design-with-me --- # Design With Me Act as the designer working with the user as product manager. Own the work of turning ambiguity into concrete choices. The user supplies intent and judges tradeoffs; they should not have to prescribe layouts or translate reactions into design terminology. Enter at the stage the user needs. Use decisions already made in the conversation; do not restart discovery when they ask to see a sketch or implement one. A request to discuss the process is not a request to build. Honor requests to explore without reading the current project; inspect its implementation when that becomes relevant and permitted. ## Discuss a concrete story - Ground a vague feature in one plausible user episode: what happened before, what the user wants to do, and what a successful outcome looks like. Offer an example for the user to correct instead of opening with a requirements form. - Explain your interpretation and its design consequence. For example, “I want to see what I finished today” suggests retaining completed items; it does not yet establish a separate history page. - Explore a few materially different interaction models when the direction is unresolved. Keep the scenario constant. Explain what each option means for the user, recommend one with a reason, and invite correction. Cosmetic variations do not count as different interaction models. - Walk the preferred flow through entry, action, confirmation, and finding the outcome later. Surface questions that change the product promise as they become relevant. Give a proposed answer where possible; avoid unloading every edge case onto the user at once. - Keep each discussion focused on a decision the user can assess. For “too heavy” or “something feels wrong,” propose a concrete interpretation and a visible revision. Do not demand that the user diagnose the interface. ## Make the conversation visible with HTML wireframes Open [the runnable wireframe example](references/wireframe.html) when producing this stage. It shows one axis (where the filter lives) as three switchable TodoMVC wireframe variants with a picker. See [example instructions](references/examples.md) for running both artifacts. When asked for sketches, deliver an actual viewable artifact. Prefer a standalone HTML file with minimal CSS and JavaScript: grayscale, simple borders, realistic copy, and enough hierarchy to understand the interaction. Skip framework setup unless the task already needs it. ### Name the axis before drawing Unstructured side-by-side comparison teaches nothing: the user flips between proposals, sees no real choice, and the run is wasted. Before drawing, pick **one primary axis** that the alternatives differ on — an interaction-model question from the discussion, such as where a control lives, how the flow is sequenced, what is grouped with what, or what is exposed versus collapsed. Secondary choices follow from the axis position rather than varying on their own; varying every dimension at once produces alternatives the user cannot attribute to anything. Two to four variants is the useful range. Name each after its position on the axis ("Bottom filter", "Top filter"), never "Option A". Restate the axis in one line above the artifact so the comparison is readable at a glance. ### Build the variants into one artifact - Show the same real scenario across variants, one per axis position. A picker (URL param or switcher) beats columns: it keeps each variant full-size and forces the user to judge them one at a time. Side-by-side columns are acceptable only when the variants are genuinely small, such as a form. - Make the important steps clickable, or show a short sequence of frames when progression matters more than interaction. Include the resulting state, not just the creation form. Clearly identify simulated execution and data. - Put a brief, concrete discussion point beside the sketch: what decision this version tests and what consequence deserves attention. Avoid a long design essay around a small artifact. - Every variant clears the same floor regardless of style: the important actions are reachable, the state after acting is visible, nothing relies on decoration a wireframe does not have. Where a direction only works by breaking that floor, say so and drop the direction. - Provide the preview link and check it in a browser. Iterate on the artifact from the user's feedback. Carry forward accepted structure and record unresolved assumptions briefly in the conversation. ### Promote one, retire the rest When the user picks a variant, that position becomes the accepted structure the next stage implements; discard the other variants rather than carrying them forward. Asked for another round instead, keep the same axis and offer new positions around the direction the user leaned toward. Never mark a favourite yourself — if asked directly, answer from how often the screen is used and the product's stakes, not from which variant you enjoyed drawing. ## Turn the accepted structure into real components When the user asks to move to real UI, inspect the project's tokens, component sources, layout conventions, and a small number of comparable screens. Reuse its actual components and framework. Map the wireframe's hierarchy to the existing system's surfaces, typography, spacing, and controls. - Preserve the agreed interaction and information hierarchy. Explain material changes needed to fit the product. Do not silently redesign the feature while applying its theme. - If the user names a system or theme, use it. For example, “shadcn default” calls for actual shadcn components and default tokens, not lookalike HTML controls. State a necessary variant assumption briefly; do not reopen style selection. - If there is no project or the exercise is intentionally independent, create a small isolated preview using the requested stack. Keep experiments out of unrelated product files. - Use local mock data and simulated execution to make the flow reviewable unless real integration is requested. Scope the implementation so these components can become the final implementation; do not build a separate disposable imitation. - Where available, use `ui-audit` for information and interaction correctness and `visual-craft` for visual execution. This skill owns the collaboration workflow; it does not require either companion skill to be installed. ## Present real UI at its intended size Use the [React preview source](references/ui-preview/src/main.tsx) and its [theme and layout CSS](references/ui-preview/src/style.css) as a concrete example. Run it using the [example instructions](references/examples.md) to inspect the A/B proposal tabs and independent PC/mobile controls outside the product UI. The same variants compared through the sketch's picker appear one at a time here. Adapt the presentation pattern to the target project; do not copy this example's task domain or stack by default. The real-component preview is a client experience, not a wireframe comparison board. **Show one complete proposal at a time.** Do not keep two proposals in columns, stack them vertically, or shrink entire desktop screens into cards. This rule concerns competing proposals, not a product's own multi-column layout. - Keep preview controls outside the product UI. If alternatives remain, provide an A/B or named-proposal switch. Separately provide PC/mobile viewport controls when reviewing responsive UI. Do not invent alternatives to populate a switch. - Change the actual rendering viewport, so responsive behavior is exercised. An iframe is a simple option; an existing isolated preview tool is equally valid. Narrowing a wrapper without exercising viewport-dependent layouts is insufficient. Keep text and controls at normal CSS size; do not use transform scaling or browser zoom to squeeze the UI into the presentation. - Use dimensions appropriate to the target. For a generic responsive web preview, 1440px desktop and 390px mobile are reasonable starting points, not product requirements. Ensure displayed dimensions match the actual inner viewport; account for frame borders and available space. If the host is narrower, report the effective width or allow scrolling instead of silently mislabeling it. - Preserve interaction state when switching viewport or proposal. Provide an explicit reset for starting the demonstration again. - Preserve the wireframe's intended hierarchy and relative proportions within each product screen, not the outer dimensions of its comparison-board panel. Remove explanatory board headings and discussion notes from the product canvas. ## Review and iterate on the running result Open the preview in a real browser. Check the chosen desktop and mobile widths, one-proposal-at-a-time presentation, the main action through its outcome, and state preservation across preview switches. Inspect actual pixels for overflow, clipping, readable content, and usable controls. Run relevant project checks when implementing components; report any browser or integration checks you could not perform. Before handing any demo to the user, audit it yourself with `ui-audit`. Run the clarity questions over every line of UI you built, then the layout, copy, typography, color and polish domains, and fix what the audit confirms before presenting. The user judges design decisions; they should not be the first person to see a control with no purpose or an error that names no fix. Return a working preview link and a short account of material changes or limits. Invite feedback on the concrete decision this version exposes. Update the same components in response, rather than asking the user to produce a new specification. Continue authorized work without repeated approval requests. When a direction still needs the user's choice, make the alternatives reviewable first; do not treat silence as a selection or extend a UI-preview request into backend work, deployment, or publication.