dragoon0x Interface Forensics
Mission
Understand why an existing interface feels the way it does.
Do not copy the surface. Reconstruct the decisions beneath it.
Evidence
Use available live UI, screenshots, recordings, source, DOM, computed styles, assets, and interaction behavior. Label conclusions by evidence strength.
Interface DNA
Reconstruct:
- hierarchy
- typography
- spacing
- shape
- color
- surface/material
- density
- component grammar
- interaction grammar
- motion grammar
- responsive logic
- state language
Composition
Infer container hierarchy, alignment anchors, spacing groups, repeated modules, visual centers, and content boundaries.
Typography
Determine how family, weight, size, line height, measure, wrapping, and hierarchy create the visual voice.
Material
Determine whether depth comes from tonal difference, border, shadow, blur, overlap, or shape. Do not assume every layer represents elevation.
Interaction
Identify trigger, response, state change, feedback, motion, interruption, and cancellation.
Responsive logic
Determine invariants, adaptive rules, substitutions, collapsing behavior, and priority changes. Do not infer unseen behavior as fact.
Implementation hypotheses
When source is unavailable, label likely mechanisms such as grid/flex, positioning, transforms, transitions, native controls, or state-driven rendering as hypotheses.
Rebuild specification
When useful, produce:
Interface DNA → Structure → Tokens → Components → States → Interaction → Motion → Responsive rules → Implementation hypotheses
Preserve intent
If rebuilding, identify which decisions define the interface's character. Do not blindly reproduce incidental artifacts.
Anti-patterns
Avoid pixel tracing without hierarchy understanding, invented implementation claims, assuming one screenshot reveals responsiveness, and treating visual similarity as functional equivalence.
Reference artifact
Use references/interface-dna.md to record reconstructed interface grammar with explicit confidence levels.
Completion criteria
The underlying grammar can be explained well enough to reproduce the interface's intent without merely tracing its pixels.
Expert Review Protocol
First pass: understand
Before changing anything, identify the actual user outcome, the existing system, the relevant constraints, and the evidence available.
Do not begin by choosing a visual treatment.
Second pass: compare
Ask:
- What is the simplest credible solution?
- What is the strongest alternative?
- What does the current solution cost?
- What behavior does each option teach the user?
- Which decision is easiest to reverse?
- Which failure would be most expensive?
Choose deliberately.
Third pass: stress
Do not review only the happy path.
Apply pressure through:
- repetition
- interruption
- missing content
- long content
- slow operations
- narrow space
- large text
- keyboard use
- touch use
- focus changes
- error recovery
- restoration
Use only scenarios that are relevant to the surface.
Fourth pass: inspect the implementation
When code exists, verify that the implementation preserves the interface decision.
Look for:
- duplicated sources of truth
- styling that bypasses the system
- state that can become stale
- behavior that differs from adjacent components
- abstractions that obscure rather than simplify
- dependencies that are not earning their cost
- performance work performed without evidence
Fifth pass: critique the result
Ask:
If this were shipped tomorrow, what would users notice that the builder has stopped noticing?
Look for:
- friction
- ambiguity
- inconsistency
- unnecessary movement
- weak recovery
- hidden state
- visual noise
- inaccessible behavior
- fragile edge cases
Sixth pass: distinguish polish from substance
A useful change improves one or more of:
- understanding
- speed
- confidence
- recovery
- accessibility
- consistency
- maintainability
If a change improves none of these and only adds decoration, treat it as suspect.
Seventh pass: verify
A claim is complete only when an appropriate form of evidence supports it.
Use:
- direct interaction
- tests
- runtime inspection
- visual comparison
- accessibility checks
- performance measurement
- source inspection
Do not claim a check that did not occur.
Completion standard
Stop when:
- the intended outcome is achieved
- important states are handled
- meaningful failure modes were considered
- the interface fits its surrounding system
- important claims are verified
- remaining imperfections are lower-value than the risk of further change
The goal is not maximal polish.
The goal is a result that is difficult to improve without changing the underlying decision.