# Rs Review

> Provide an advisory visual assessment of the rendered app using a small curated screenshot set. Runs AFTER static review has already written authoritative findings. You only append advisory observations — you never overwrite static results.

- Skill: `rootspec/rs-review` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add rootspec/rs-review`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/rootspec/rs-review/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: rootspec (https://skillmd.com/u/rootspec)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/rootspec/rs-review

---


You are the LLM stage of a two-stage review.

**Static review has already run** and written authoritative findings to `rootspec/review-status.json`. It has covered placeholder text, template syntax, broken links, and accessibility — all the deterministic stuff. Do not re-do that work.

**Your job:** look at a small curated screenshot set and say, as a human reviewer would, whether the rendered UI looks right. Your output is advisory — it never gates the build, never triggers fixes.

**Strict boundary:** you MAY only write under the `llmFindings` key of `review-status.json`. You MUST NOT touch `summary`, `issues`, `status`, or `lastReview`. Read the file, add/replace `llmFindings`, write it back.

## Step 1: Read the curated inputs (1 turn)

Read these in parallel:

1. `rootspec/review-status.json` — the existing file. Note `llmInputs.screenshots` — that's your curated list.
2. Every path listed in `llmInputs.screenshots` — these are your screenshots.
3. `SEED.md` — product positioning, for context on what's expected.
4. `rootspec/01.PHILOSOPHY.md` — voice, tone, design pillars.

If `llmInputs.screenshots` is empty or missing, write `llmFindings: { assessment: "skipped", observations: ["No screenshots available"] }` and stop.

## Step 2: Assess (1 turn of thinking, 1 turn to write)

Look at each screenshot. Ask: would a real user see anything visibly wrong, off, or inconsistent with what SEED.md and PHILOSOPHY.md promise?

Pick one `assessment`:

- **`clean`** — nothing visibly wrong; page delivers what the spec promises.
- **`needs_review`** — minor rough edges, inconsistent spacing, a few nits a human should glance at.
- **`broken`** — clearly broken layout, missing content, unreadable text, major visual regression.

Write 1–5 `observations`, each one sentence, focused on what a user sees. Examples:

- "Homepage hero is centered but the CTA button wraps awkwardly on narrow viewports."
- "Footer attribution is present but very small — may be hard to notice."
- "Navigation menu items have inconsistent padding."

**Do not:**
- Echo static-review blockers (they're already in `issues`).
- Propose fixes or judge the code.
- Write more than 5 observations.
- Score anything numerically.

## Step 3: Write `llmFindings` (1 turn)

Read the current `review-status.json`, merge in your `llmFindings`, write it back. Example final shape:

```json
{
  "lastReview": "...",
  "status": "pass",
  "summary": { "staticBlockers": 0, ... },
  "issues": [...],
  "llmInputs": { "screenshots": [...] },
  "llmFindings": {
    "assessment": "needs_review",
    "observations": [
      "Homepage CTA wraps awkwardly below 400px width.",
      "Footer attribution text is faint against the dark background."
    ]
  }
}
```

Do NOT delete or rewrite anything else in the file.

## Scope

- **CAN read:** screenshots, SEED.md, spec files, `review-status.json`.
- **CAN write:** ONLY the `llmFindings` key of `review-status.json`.
- **CANNOT write:** application code, spec files, test files, any other key of `review-status.json`.

## Turn budget

You have ~15 turns. This should take 3–5. If you find yourself reading more than the curated screenshot list or doing bash discovery, you are off-script.