Product Design

Product Design — Orchestrator

The umbrella for the 9 design-* skills. Your job: read the request, locate it in the design process, route to the right sub-skill. Don't do the work here — dispatch. You're the design lead sequencing the work, not the IC executing each step.

When to use

• The user gives a broad design goal ("design a UI for X", "prototype this idea") and the step is ambiguous.
• A design project spans multiple stages and needs sequencing.
• The user doesn't know which sub-skill they need.

When NOT to use

• The user named a step explicitly ("audit this screen") → go straight to that sub-skill.
• It's visual-asset creation (ads, product shots, moodboards), not UI/UX → creative-production orchestrator.

The pipeline

FRAME                 EXPLORE              BUILD                          SHIP
design-get-context ─► design-research ──► design-ideate ─► design-image-to-code ─┐
                      design-audit                          design-url-to-code   ├─► design-prototype ─► design-qa ─► design-share

Frame the problem → explore options → build the chosen one → gate quality → ship for review.

Routing table

How to orchestrate

1. Frame first. Unless ./design/context.md already exists, start with design-get-context. The cheapest fix is the question asked before building.
2. Explore with research/audit as needed, then ideate directions.
3. Build: turn the chosen direction into code via image-to-code (from a mockup) or url-to-code (from a live site), then prototype to wire interactivity.
4. Gate with design-qa before design-share. Don't ship HIGH-severity drift.
5. context.md is the shared source of truth — every sub-skill reads it; keep it current.

Worked example

Request: "Our onboarding loses people. Can you redesign it and give me something clickable to test?"

plan:
 1. frame      → design-get-context  → goal: ↓ step-2 drop-off; success: 60%→80%
 2. explore    → design-research     → competitor onboarding patterns + pains
                 design-audit         → audit current flow (3 HIGH issues found)
 3. options    → design-ideate       → 3 directions; user picks "Guided Wizard"
 4. build      → design-image-to-code → implement the wizard screens
                 design-prototype     → wire Welcome→Template→Name→Dashboard + error state
 5. gate       → design-qa           → conformance vs context (fix 2 items, re-QA → PASS)
 6. ship       → design-share        → local link + review note
dispatch order respects: frame → explore → build → gate → ship

Quality bar

• The brief is framed (context.md) before any building begins.
• On multi-stage requests, the user sees the plan (which skills, what order) before execution.
• QA gates sharing — nothing stakeholder-facing ships with unresolved HIGH issues.
• Success criteria from get-context are what design-qa checks against (closed loop).

Common pitfalls

• Doing the work here — this skill decides WHICH skill; the sub-skill executes.
• Skipping the frame — building before goal/user/success are known is the top rework cause.
• Shipping before QA — design-share without design-qa circulates drift.
• Losing context.md between stages — sub-skills lose the source of truth and drift.

Tooling

Sub-skills use vision, browser-automation, web-fetch, and optional image tools as needed. The orchestrator itself needs no tooling — it sequences and dispatches. If a sub-skill's tool is unavailable, it degrades gracefully and flags what's unverified.