How do I install the Review Design skill?

Run npx skillmds@latest add gtrabanco/review-design-2 in your terminal (requires Node.js), paste this page's agent-chat prompt into Claude, Cursor, or any MCP-connected agent, or download the SKILL.md file and copy it into your agent's skills directory.

Is Review Design safe to use?

This skill has not completed SkillMD's automated safety review yet. Independent scanners report: SkillSpector: PASS, Skill Scanner: PASS. SkillMD never runs a skill's scripts for you; review the SKILL.md before installing.

Which AI agents work with Review Design?

This skill is tagged as working with Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex. SKILL.md is an open format, so most agents that read a skills directory can load it too.

Is Review Design free to use?

Yes. Installing skills from SkillMD is free. This skill is licensed under MIT.

Who published Review Design?

gtrabanco (@gtrabanco) published this skill. Their other Agent Skills are listed on their SkillMD profile.

Review Design by gtrabanco — Agent Skill

Name: Review Design
Author: gtrabanco

Review Design

Internal UI/UX design review pass of the agentic-workflow review pack — composed in-turn by review-change and product-audit; not a menu entry. Checks the changed UI against the project's design doc: consistency, states, responsiveness, and reuse — applies only when the project has a UI and the change touches it. Findings only; never edits code.

gtrabanco Updated Sep 21, 2026

File contents

Review Design (internal)

Composed by review-change / product-audit within their conversation — on any agent, follow this file inline as the routed step. Findings only; never edits, never refactors.

Scope

The diff or path/glob the caller passes; default the current change vs the default branch. State the scope at the top of the returned table.

Checklist (evaluate EVERY item — none is optional; n/a must be stated)

✓ Read the project's design doc first (e.g. docs/frontend/DESIGN.md) — cite the rule for every finding ✓ Changed components reuse the design system (no one-off styles/colors/spacing duplicating existing tokens or components) ✓ Every new/changed view handles ALL states: loading, empty, error, success (cite each) ✓ Responsive behavior stated and honored at the project's breakpoints (n/a if the platform has none) ✓ No hardcoded user-facing strings where the project declares i18n (cite the i18n doc) ✓ Visual hierarchy: primary action distinguishable, one primary action per view ✓ Consistency with sibling screens (same patterns for the same interactions — cite the diverging sibling) ✓ Destructive actions require confirmation and are visually distinct ✓ Feedback on every user action (submit, save, fail) — no silent operations

Materiality bar

Report a row only when a competent user's outcome changes or a rule the project explicitly declares is violated — cite the rule it violates beside the evidence. Not findings: comment/punctuation typos, formatting-only drift, style preference with no cited rule, hypothetical robustness beyond the SPEC's named scenarios. An empty table with Decision: PASS is the expected result for a well-formed change — never pad the table.

Return exactly

REVIEW DESIGN — scope: <scope>

| # | Finding | Sev | Evidence | Suggested fix |
|---|---------|-----|----------|---------------|
| 1 | <what>  | critical|major|minor | <file:line> | <smallest action> |

Checklist: <n> evaluated, <n> pass, <n> findings, <n> n/a (<which + why>)
Summary: <1-2 sentences>
Decision: PASS | FAIL

FAIL if any critical or major finding is open; PASS otherwise. Minor findings never block — they route to the caller's triage step.

Done when

Every checklist item was evaluated with evidence (file:line or command output) or explicitly marked n/a with the reason.
The fixed-format block above is returned — nothing more, nothing less — and no code was changed.

---name: review-design-2description: Internal UI/UX design review pass of the agentic-workflow review pack — composed in-turn by review-change and product-audit; not a menu entry. Checks the changed UI against the project's design doc: consistency, states, responsiveness, and reuse — applies only when the project has a UI and the change touches it. Findings only; never edits code.license: MIT---# Review Design (internal)Composed by `review-change` / `product-audit` within their conversation — on anyagent, follow this file inline as the routed step. **Findings only; never edits,never refactors.**## ScopeThe diff or path/glob the caller passes; default the current change vs thedefault branch. State the scope at the top of the returned table.## Checklist (evaluate EVERY item — none is optional; n/a must be stated)✓ Read the project's design doc first (e.g. docs/frontend/DESIGN.md) — cite the rule for every finding✓ Changed components reuse the design system (no one-off styles/colors/spacing duplicating existing tokens or components)✓ Every new/changed view handles ALL states: loading, empty, error, success (cite each)✓ Responsive behavior stated and honored at the project's breakpoints (n/a if the platform has none)✓ No hardcoded user-facing strings where the project declares i18n (cite the i18n doc)✓ Visual hierarchy: primary action distinguishable, one primary action per view✓ Consistency with sibling screens (same patterns for the same interactions — cite the diverging sibling)✓ Destructive actions require confirmation and are visually distinct✓ Feedback on every user action (submit, save, fail) — no silent operations## Materiality barReport a row only when a competent user's outcome changes or a rule the projectexplicitly declares is violated — cite the rule it violates beside the evidence.Not findings: comment/punctuation typos, formatting-only drift, style preferencewith no cited rule, hypothetical robustness beyond the SPEC's named scenarios.An empty table with `Decision: PASS` is the expected result for a well-formedchange — never pad the table.## Return exactly```REVIEW DESIGN — scope: <scope>| # | Finding | Sev | Evidence | Suggested fix ||---|---------|-----|----------|---------------|| 1 | <what> | critical|major|minor | <file:line> | <smallest action> |Checklist: <n> evaluated, <n> pass, <n> findings, <n> n/a (<which + why>)Summary: <1-2 sentences>Decision: PASS | FAIL```FAIL if any critical or major finding is open; PASS otherwise. Minor findingsnever block — they route to the caller's triage step.## Done when- Every checklist item was evaluated with evidence (file:line or command output) or explicitly marked n/a with the reason.- The fixed-format block above is returned — nothing more, nothing less — and no code was changed.

Frequently asked questions