# UX Pr Review > Prepare and run an agent-assisted UX / workflow review of a pull request. Use when the operator says "I'm about to work on a UX PR review, please prepare", "prepare a UX review for PR - Skill: `microsoft/ux-pr-review` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 3 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add microsoft/ux-pr-review` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/microsoft/ux-pr-review/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: AI & ML - Author: Microsoft (https://skillmd.com/u/microsoft) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/microsoft/ux-pr-review --- # UX PR Review (agent-assisted) A UX review is different from a code review: the value comes from **actually using the extension and walking real user journeys**, not from reading a diff. The pattern is a **person paired with an agent** — the person drives the UX and reports what they see; the agent reads the code, verifies each claim against it, keeps the running log, and maintains the todo list. This skill has **two modes**: 1. **Prepare (pre-assessment)** — triggered up front. The agent inventories the feature's user interactions, draws where each flow **starts and terminates**, pre-discovers **flow inconsistencies** (modal vs. non-modal vs. silent), seeds the review document, and hands off to the operator with an executive summary. 2. **Live review** — the operator exercises the feature and dictates observations; the agent verifies against code, records each finding, and keeps the priority index + todo list current. > The full document skeleton lives in [references/review-document-template.md](./references/review-document-template.md). > The pre-discovery checklist lives in [references/inconsistency-checklist.md](./references/inconsistency-checklist.md). > Worked examples: [`docs/ai-and-plans/features/kubernetes-discovery/iterations/01-kubernetes-discovery/bugbash-090-ux-review.md`](../../../docs/ai-and-plans/features/kubernetes-discovery/iterations/01-kubernetes-discovery/bugbash-090-ux-review.md) and [`docs/ai-and-plans/features/index-management/iterations/01-index-dashboard/ux-review-iteration-1-2.md`](../../../docs/ai-and-plans/features/index-management/iterations/01-index-dashboard/ux-review-iteration-1-2.md). ## When to Use - The operator asks to **prepare** a UX review, or says they are about to start one. - Reviewing the UX/workflow of a PR, branch, or feature by hand. - Pairing live: the operator reports what they saw and asks you to investigate and update the todo list / review doc. --- ## Mode 1 — Prepare (do this when asked to "prepare") Work through these steps, then stop and hand off. **Do not start critiquing individual pixels yet** — the goal is to give the operator a seeded document and a map of the flows. ### Step 1 — Identify the review target Determine the PR number, branch, and the **feature surface** (the source folders that implement it). If not given, ask which PR/branch. Read `package.json` menus/commands, the tree items, the webview components, and the command handlers for that surface. ### Step 2 — Inventory the user interactions List every place the user can **act** on this feature: tree nodes and their context menus, empty-state rows, wizard steps / quick picks, webview buttons, commands, drag-and-drop. For each, note the **entry point** (how the user gets there) and the **terminal state** (success, error, silent no-op, dialog, tree refresh, new panel). ### Step 3 — Draw where flows start and terminate Produce **both** an ASCII diagram and a Mermaid diagram in the document's "User interaction map" section: - **ASCII flow** — a compact state/branch map (see the `Appendix A` flow in the Local Quick Start example). Good for phase machines and webview panels. - **Mermaid `flowchart`** — nodes for each user action/state, edges for transitions, and **explicit terminal nodes** for every outcome (success toast, modal error, silent no-op, tree badge). Mark inconsistent terminations so they stand out. ```mermaid flowchart TD A[User clicks 'Start'] --> B{Container ours & alive?} B -- yes --> C[Starting… → Running badge] B -- missing --> D([SILENT no-op ⚠️ only output channel]) B -- not ours --> E([Modal warning]) ``` The point of the diagram is to make **asymmetric terminations obvious**: if one branch ends in a modal, another in a passive tree row, and a third in nothing at all, the diagram should show it at a glance. ### Step 4 — Pre-discover flow inconsistencies Before the operator touches the feature, sweep the code for the inconsistencies UX reviews most often catch (full list in [references/inconsistency-checklist.md](./references/inconsistency-checklist.md)). The headline one: > **Error/feedback surface inconsistency** — the same _class_ of event is surfaced three > different ways across the feature: sometimes a **modal** (`showErrorMessage(…, { modal: true })`), > sometimes a **non-modal** toast/warning, sometimes a **passive tree row**, and sometimes > **nothing at all** (a silent early-return with only output-channel text). List every > occurrence with its file reference and flag the divergences. The house style across > shipped discovery providers is: **errors → modal + output channel; tree rows → actions > only; a single canonical "Click here to retry" node.** Seed these as **Flag** items in the document so the operator can confirm them live. ### Step 5 — Seed the review document Create the file at **`docs/ai-and-plans/features/{feature}/iterations/NN-{slug}.md`** (or `.../iterations/NN-{slug}/ux-review.md` when that iteration already holds several documents). Pick the feature from the index in [`docs/ai-and-plans/README.md`](../../../docs/ai-and-plans/README.md); create a new feature folder with a README if none fits. Use the full skeleton in [references/review-document-template.md](./references/review-document-template.md): header block, "How this review was run", the **Legend** (Priority + Status + Markers), the **User interaction map** (the two diagrams from Step 3), "The story in one paragraph", the **Priority index** table, the P0→P3 + Implemented section stubs (pre-filled with the Step-4 Flags as `🟠 Open`), an **Open ideas** section, and an **Appendix** for the flow reference. > This document is committed. `docs/ai-and-plans/` is tracked — do **not** place it in > `docs/plan/` or `docs/analysis/` (those are git-ignored). Never `git add -f`. ### Step 6 — Executive summary + hand-off End your turn with a short **executive summary of the pre-assessment**: - the feature surface and the flows you mapped; - how many pre-discovered Flags you seeded, grouped by suspected severity; - the top inconsistencies to confirm (especially error-surface asymmetry); - **where the seeded file is**, and an explicit invitation: _"The pre-seeded review doc is at ``. Start the hands-on investigation — exercise the feature and tell me what you see; I'll verify each observation against the code and keep the doc and todo list updated."_ Do not proceed to deep per-item analysis until the operator starts driving. --- ## Mode 2 — Live review loop For each observation the operator reports: 1. **Verify against code.** Trace the exact code path that produces the behavior. Never record a finding you have not confirmed in the source. 2. **Record the item** in the correct priority section using the four-part shape: - **Observation** — what the reviewer saw (their words). - **Finding** — what the code does and why, with file references and `⚠️`/`🔍` markers. - **Suggestion** (💡) — the recommended direction. If the operator has a lean, capture it as a blockquote _"TN leans towards … because …"_ and keep the status **Open** (it is a suggestion, not a decision). - **Status** — 🟠 Open / 🟡 Open (soft) / ✅ Implemented. 3. **Update the Priority index** table and the **todo list** (`manage_todo_list`) so the operator always sees remaining items at a glance. 4. **Heavy trade-offs → Open ideas.** When a finding has real design options, add an `O#` entry with a **pros/cons table** and a suggested option rather than deciding inline. 5. **Out-of-scope → issues.** If a finding is beyond the PR's scope or would risk delaying the merge, offer to file a repo issue and link it from the log instead of expanding scope. 6. **Phase the work.** Review one user journey at a time (first-run/empty state → adding → presentation → connectivity → destructive actions), closing each out before the next, so context stays lean. If the operator asks for tests to lock in an agreed behavior, add them as the finding lands. --- ## Mode 3 — Fixing in iterations Once the operator starts choosing fixes, the review runs in **iterations**. Each iteration is a numbered pass over the open items; anything **not resolved in an iteration is carried forward to the next one** so nothing is ever silently dropped. The document is the ledger: an item leaves it only by becoming **Implemented**, **Closed** (won't-fix, with a reason), or **filed as a repo issue** (with a link). ### The iteration loop 1. **Group the current iteration.** Under an `## Iteration N` heading (or per-item `➡️ Iteration N` sub-entries, as the K8s review does), list the items being worked this pass. Everything still `🟠 Open` after the pass rolls into `## Iteration N+1`. 2. **Capture the decision — and its _reason_ — before coding.** When the operator picks a fix, **ask them why**. Record their choice _and_ the reasoning inline on the item as a **Decision** block: > **Decision (Iteration N):** {{what was chosen}}. **Reason:** {{operator's rationale}}. > **Remind the operator:** _"This reasoning is the real value of the review — it's what > lets future maintainers and contributors understand **why** the code looks the way it > does. A one-line 'because …' now saves a re-litigation later."_ Never invent a > rationale; if the operator hasn't given one, ask for it and wait. 3. **Implement one item at a time.** Follow the code-review discipline in [CONTRIBUTING.md](../../../CONTRIBUTING.md) §6.3: report progress inline; if you deviate from the plan, document why; only proceed when confidence is high, otherwise stop and ask. **Commit each item individually — no mass commits.** 4. **Document the fix with a commit reference.** After the item is committed, flip its status to `✅ Implemented` and append an **Implemented** block that says what changed, the files touched, and a **link to the commit**: > ✅ **Implemented (Iteration N):** {{what was done}}. Files: {{links}}. > Commit: [`{{short-sha}}`]({{commit url}}). Verified via {{lint / tests / build}}. If the fix answers a Copilot-reviewer comment or a repo issue, post the same summary there and link it back from the item. 5. **Carry forward the remainder.** At the end of the iteration, update the **Priority index** (status column) and the **todo list** so every unresolved item is explicitly parked in the next iteration. An item is never removed from the ledger without a terminal status. ### Terminal states for an item | Outcome | How it's recorded | | ----------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Fixed on this branch | `✅ Implemented` + Decision block + Implemented block with commit link | | Won't fix | `🚫 Closed` + a one-line **reason** (this reason is mandatory) | | Deferred / out-of-scope | Filed as a repo issue, `🔗 Tracked` + issue link; removed from active P-list | | Still open | Stays `🟠 Open` and **moves to the next iteration** | ### After merge Stamp the log with a short reconciliation note pointing to the current source of truth (user manual / pre-merge code review), so a stale iteration is never mistaken for current behavior. --- ## Severity & status legend (use exactly these) **Priority** | Priority | Meaning | | -------- | -------------------------------------------------- | | **P0** | Blocking — the user gets stuck | | **P1** | Broken / misleading, or a consistency & safety gap | | **P2** | Polish, expectation, or a smaller feature gap | | **P3** | Nice-to-have / cosmetic / acknowledged | **Status** | Status | Meaning | | ------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | 🟠 **Open** | Recorded + analyzed; carries a recommendation but stays a _suggestion_ | | 🟡 **Open (soft)** | Open, but the recommendation depends on an investigation or is "as-is" | | ✅ **Implemented** | A change was made on this branch and verified (Decision + commit link) | | 🚫 **Closed** | Won't fix — with a mandatory one-line reason | | 🔗 **Tracked** | Deferred to a repo issue (linked); dropped from the active priority list | **Inline markers** | Marker | Meaning | | ----------------- | ------------------------------------------------------- | | ⚠️ **Flag** | Confirmed gap or bug | | 💡 **Suggestion** | A design/wording recommendation to react to | | 🔍 **Answered** | A "how does this work?" question answered from the code | --- ## Conventions - **Terminology:** "DocumentDB" for the service; "MongoDB API" / "DocumentDB API" for the wire protocol. Never "MongoDB" alone. - **File references:** link the exact file (and line where useful) that produces each behavior so a later implementation pass does not have to re-derive it. - **Recommendations are suggestions, not decisions.** The operator (author) owns the call; record their reasoning inline. This is what lets future maintainers understand _why_. - **Reconcile after merge.** A running log goes stale the moment behavior changes. When the work merges, stamp the log with a note pointing to the current source of truth (user manual / pre-merge code review).