Visual Review
Review the actual artifact or render when available. Do not infer visual quality from filenames or source text alone.
Procedure
- Restate the artifact's apparent objective, audience, medium, and constraints.
- Inspect at the correct scale: whole composition first, then detail. For multi-page work, inspect sequence and representative spreads.
- Separate findings into:
- objective or production defects
- communication/hierarchy problems
- system consistency problems
- art-direction / taste judgments
- Evaluate brand fit, message hierarchy, composition, typography, color, imagery, spacing/rhythm, consistency, distinctiveness, and medium-specific production risk.
- Cite concrete evidence for every material finding: location, page, element, crop, size, contrast relationship, or repeated pattern.
- Prioritize fixes by impact and leverage:
- P0: factual, unusable, production-blocking, or severe recognition/legibility issue
- P1: material communication or consistency issue
- P2: refinement/polish
- Recommend a correction that preserves the useful parts of the current design. Avoid redesigning everything by default.
- Re-review changed artifacts when available.
Output
Use concise findings with priority, evidence, why it matters, and recommended correction. End with unresolved decisions, not a fake taste score.
Failure conditions
Do not review visual quality from code/text alone when an artifact can be inspected. Do not use vague feedback such as "more premium" without translating it into concrete design changes.
1---2name: visual-review3description: Critique an existing logo, VI system, brochure, catalog, key visual, poster, product/effect image, campaign asset, or print layout using concrete visual evidence. Use for design review, before/after comparison, revision planning, quality control, or when the user asks what is wrong, what to improve, or whether a design is ready to present or produce.4---56# Visual Review78Review the actual artifact or render when available. Do not infer visual quality from filenames or source text alone.910## Procedure11121. Restate the artifact's apparent objective, audience, medium, and constraints.132. Inspect at the correct scale: whole composition first, then detail. For multi-page work, inspect sequence and representative spreads.143. Separate findings into:15 - objective or production defects16 - communication/hierarchy problems17 - system consistency problems18 - art-direction / taste judgments194. Evaluate brand fit, message hierarchy, composition, typography, color, imagery, spacing/rhythm, consistency, distinctiveness, and medium-specific production risk.205. Cite concrete evidence for every material finding: location, page, element, crop, size, contrast relationship, or repeated pattern.216. Prioritize fixes by impact and leverage:22 - P0: factual, unusable, production-blocking, or severe recognition/legibility issue23 - P1: material communication or consistency issue24 - P2: refinement/polish257. Recommend a correction that preserves the useful parts of the current design. Avoid redesigning everything by default.268. Re-review changed artifacts when available.2728## Output2930Use concise findings with priority, evidence, why it matters, and recommended correction. End with unresolved decisions, not a fake taste score.3132## Failure conditions3334Do not review visual quality from code/text alone when an artifact can be inspected. Do not use vague feedback such as "more premium" without translating it into concrete design changes.
devotionn