# Design Review

> Run structured design reviews that produce actionable findings and clear approval decisions. Use when a design artifact needs formal review for usability, accessibility, consistency, and implementation readiness before handoff or approval; do not use for backend data-model or deployment pipeline decisions.

- Skill: `planifest/design-review` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add planifest/design-review`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/planifest/design-review/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Web & Frontend
- Author: planifest (https://skillmd.com/u/planifest)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/planifest/design-review

---


# Design Review

## Overview
Use this skill to convert subjective design feedback into prioritized, evidence-based decisions that unblock implementation.

## Scope Boundaries
- Use this skill when the task matches the trigger condition described in `description`.
- Do not use this skill when the primary task falls outside this skill's domain.

## Shared References
- Severity calibration guidance:
  - `references/design-review-severity-guidance.md`

## Templates And Assets
- Findings template:
  - `assets/design-review-findings-template.md`
- Approval decision log:
  - `assets/design-review-decision-log-template.md`

## Inputs To Gather
- Review target (screens, flows, interaction states) and intended users.
- Acceptance criteria and non-negotiable constraints.
- Accessibility and localization expectations for in-scope surfaces.
- Delivery timeline and risk tolerance for unresolved issues.

## Deliverables
- Findings list with severity, user impact, engineering impact, and owner.
- Explicit approval decision: approved, conditional approval, or rejected.
- Remediation plan with due dates and verification method.
- Residual risk statement for any deferred non-blocker issues.

## Quick Example
- Blocker: keyboard focus order breaks checkout completion.
- Major: ambiguous copy causes wrong destructive action selection.
- Minor: visual rhythm inconsistency without measurable task impact.
- Decision: reject due to blocker; re-review only affected flow after fix.

## Quality Standard
- Findings are reproducible and linked to concrete evidence.
- Severity reflects impact, not reviewer preference.
- Blockers are separated from improvements and tracked independently.
- Approval decision is auditable and tied to explicit criteria.

## Workflow
1. Confirm review scope, criteria, and decision authority.
2. Evaluate critical user journeys before secondary surfaces.
3. Log findings with impact, severity, and remediation guidance in `assets/design-review-findings-template.md`.
4. Resolve or defer issues using explicit risk acceptance rules and `references/design-review-severity-guidance.md`.
5. Publish final decision and follow-up actions in `assets/design-review-decision-log-template.md`.

## Failure Conditions
- Stop when review scope or acceptance criteria are ambiguous.
- Stop when critical flows cannot be validated end-to-end.
- Escalate when blocker findings remain open near implementation handoff.