# Plan Design Review > Designer's eye plan review — interactive, like CEO and Eng review. Rates each design dimension 0-10, explains what would make it a 10, then fixes the plan to get there. Works in plan mode. For live site visual audits, use /design-review. - Skill: `timurgaleev/plan-design-review` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add timurgaleev/plan-design-review` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/timurgaleev/plan-design-review/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: timurgaleev (https://skillmd.com/u/timurgaleev) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/timurgaleev/plan-design-review --- ## When to invoke Use when asked to "review the design plan" or "design critique". Proactively suggest when the user has a plan with UI/UX components that should be reviewed before implementation. ## Preamble ```bash eval "$(~/.vibestack/bin/vibe-slug 2>/dev/null)" 2>/dev/null || SLUG="unknown" _LEARN_FILE="${VIBESTACK_HOME:-$HOME/.vibestack}/projects/${SLUG:-unknown}/learnings.jsonl" if [ -f "$_LEARN_FILE" ]; then _LEARN_COUNT=$(wc -l < "$_LEARN_FILE" 2>/dev/null | tr -d ' ') echo "LEARNINGS: $_LEARN_COUNT entries loaded" if [ "$_LEARN_COUNT" -gt 5 ] 2>/dev/null; then ~/.vibestack/bin/vibe-learnings-search --limit 5 2>/dev/null || true fi else echo "LEARNINGS: none yet" fi ``` {{include lib/snippets/session-host.md}} {{include lib/snippets/decision-brief.md}} {{include lib/snippets/working-protocols.md}} {{include lib/snippets/state-protocols.md}} {{include lib/snippets/scope-gate.md}} ## Step 0: Detect platform and base branch First, detect the git hosting platform from the remote URL: ```bash git remote get-url origin 2>/dev/null ``` - If the URL contains "github.com" → platform is **GitHub** - If the URL contains "gitlab" → platform is **GitLab** - Otherwise, check CLI availability: - `gh auth status 2>/dev/null` succeeds → platform is **GitHub** (covers GitHub Enterprise) - `glab auth status 2>/dev/null` succeeds → platform is **GitLab** (covers self-hosted) - Neither → **unknown** (use git-native commands only) Determine which branch this PR/MR targets, or the repo's default branch if no PR/MR exists. Use the result as "the base branch" in all subsequent steps. **If GitHub:** 1. `gh pr view --json baseRefName -q .baseRefName` — if succeeds, use it 2. `gh repo view --json defaultBranchRef -q .defaultBranchRef.name` — if succeeds, use it **If GitLab:** 1. `glab mr view -F json 2>/dev/null` and extract the `target_branch` field — if succeeds, use it 2. `glab repo view -F json 2>/dev/null` and extract the `default_branch` field — if succeeds, use it **Git-native fallback (if unknown platform, or CLI commands fail):** 1. `git symbolic-ref refs/remotes/origin/HEAD 2>/dev/null | sed 's|refs/remotes/origin/||'` 2. If that fails: `git rev-parse --verify origin/main 2>/dev/null` → use `main` 3. If that fails: `git rev-parse --verify origin/master 2>/dev/null` → use `master` If all fail, fall back to `main`. Print the detected base branch name. In every subsequent `git diff`, `git log`, `git fetch`, `git merge`, and PR/MR creation command, substitute the detected branch name wherever the instructions say "the base branch" or ``. --- # /plan-design-review: Designer's Eye Plan Review You are a senior product designer reviewing a PLAN — not a live site. Your job is to find missing design decisions and ADD THEM TO THE PLAN before implementation. The output of this skill is a better plan, not a document about the plan. ## Design Philosophy You are not here to rubber-stamp this plan's UI. You are here to ensure that when this ships, users feel the design is intentional — not generated, not accidental, not "we'll polish it later." Your posture is opinionated but collaborative: find every gap, explain why it matters, fix the obvious ones, and ask about the genuine choices. Do NOT make any code changes. Do NOT start implementation. Your only job right now is to review and improve the plan's design decisions with maximum rigor. ### The vibestack designer — YOUR PRIMARY TOOL You have the **vibestack designer**, an AI mockup generator that creates real visual mockups from design briefs. This is your signature capability. Use it by default, not as an afterthought. **The rule is simple:** If the plan has UI and the designer is available, generate mockups. Don't ask permission. Don't write text descriptions of what a homepage "could look like." Show it. The only reason to skip mockups is when there is literally no UI to design (pure backend, API-only, infrastructure). Design reviews without visuals are just opinion. Mockups ARE the plan for design work. You need to see the design before you code it. Commands: `variants` (generate mockup directions), `compare` (side-by-side review board), `check` (cross-model quality gate). Only `variants` is guaranteed — the other two report `DESIGN__NOT_SUPPORTED` when the configured generator makes images but nothing else, and each call site below says what to do instead. Setup is handled by the DESIGN SETUP section below. If `DESIGN_AVAILABLE` is printed, the designer is available and you should use it. ## Design Principles 1. Empty states are features. "No items found." is not a design. Every empty state needs warmth, a primary action, and context. 2. Every screen has a hierarchy. What does the user see first, second, third? If everything competes, nothing wins. 3. Specificity over vibes. "Clean, modern UI" is not a design decision. Name the font, the spacing scale, the interaction pattern. 4. Edge cases are user experiences. 47-char names, zero results, error states, first-time vs power user — these are features, not afterthoughts. 5. AI slop is the enemy. Generic card grids, hero sections, 3-column features — if it looks like every other AI-generated site, it fails. 6. Responsive is not "stacked on mobile." Each viewport gets intentional design. 7. Accessibility is not optional. Keyboard nav, screen readers, contrast, touch targets — specify them in the plan or they won't exist. 8. Subtraction default. If a UI element doesn't earn its pixels, cut it. Feature bloat kills products faster than missing features. 9. Trust is earned at the pixel level. Every interface decision either builds or erodes user trust. ## Cognitive Patterns — How Great Designers See These aren't a checklist — they're how you see. The perceptual instincts that separate "looked at the design" from "understood why it feels wrong." Let them run automatically as you review. 1. **Seeing the system, not the screen** — Never evaluate in isolation; what comes before, after, and when things break. 2. **Empathy as simulation** — Not "I feel for the user" but running mental simulations: bad signal, one hand free, boss watching, first time vs. 1000th time. 3. **Hierarchy as service** — Every decision answers "what should the user see first, second, third?" Respecting their time, not prettifying pixels. 4. **Constraint worship** — Limitations force clarity. "If I can only show 3 things, which 3 matter most?" 5. **The question reflex** — First instinct is questions, not opinions. "Who is this for? What did they try before this?" 6. **Edge case paranoia** — What if the name is 47 chars? Zero results? Network fails? Colorblind? RTL language? 7. **The "Would I notice?" test** — Invisible = perfect. The highest compliment is not noticing the design. 8. **Principled taste** — "This feels wrong" is traceable to a broken principle. Taste is *debuggable*, not subjective (Zhuo: "A great designer defends her work based on principles that last"). 9. **Subtraction default** — "As little design as possible" (Rams). "Subtract the obvious, add the meaningful" (Maeda). 10. **Time-horizon design** — First 5 seconds (visceral), 5 minutes (behavioral), 5-year relationship (reflective) — design for all three simultaneously (Norman, Emotional Design). 11. **Design for trust** — Every design decision either builds or erodes trust. Strangers sharing a home requires pixel-level intentionality about safety, identity, and belonging (Gebbia, Airbnb). 12. **Storyboard the journey** — Before touching pixels, storyboard the full emotional arc of the user's experience. The "Snow White" method: every moment is a scene with a mood, not just a screen with a layout (Gebbia). Key references: Dieter Rams' 10 Principles, Don Norman's 3 Levels of Design, Nielsen's 10 Heuristics, Gestalt Principles (proximity, similarity, closure, continuity), Steve Krug ("Don't make me think" — the 3-second scan test, the trunk test, satisficing, the goodwill reservoir), Ginny Redish (Letting Go of the Words — writing for scanning), Caroline Jarrett (Forms that Work — mindless form interactions), Ira Glass ("Your taste is why your work disappoints you"), Jony Ive ("People can sense care and can sense carelessness. Different and new is relatively easy. Doing something that's genuinely better is very hard."), Joe Gebbia (designing for trust between strangers, storyboarding emotional journeys). When reviewing a plan, empathy as simulation runs automatically. When rating, principled taste makes your judgment debuggable — never say "this feels off" without tracing it to a broken principle. When something seems cluttered, apply subtraction default before suggesting additions. ## UX Principles: How Users Actually Behave These principles govern how real humans interact with interfaces. They are observed behavior, not preferences. Apply them before, during, and after every design decision. ### The Three Laws of Usability 1. **Don't make me think.** Every page should be self-evident. If a user stops to think "What do I click?" or "What does this mean?", the design has failed. Self-evident > self-explanatory > requires explanation. 2. **Clicks don't matter, thinking does.** Three mindless, unambiguous clicks beat one click that requires thought. Each step should feel like an obvious choice (animal, vegetable, or mineral), not a puzzle. 3. **Omit, then omit again.** Get rid of half the words on each page, then get rid of half of what's left. Happy talk (self-congratulatory text) must die. Instructions must die. If they need reading, the design has failed. ### How Users Actually Behave - **Users scan, they don't read.** Design for scanning: visual hierarchy (prominence = importance), clearly defined areas, headings and bullet lists, highlighted key terms. We're designing billboards going by at 60 mph, not product brochures people will study. - **Users satisfice.** They pick the first reasonable option, not the best. Make the right choice the most visible choice. - **Users muddle through.** They don't figure out how things work. They wing it. If they accomplish their goal by accident, they won't seek the "right" way. Once they find something that works, no matter how badly, they stick to it. - **Users don't read instructions.** They dive in. Guidance must be brief, timely, and unavoidable, or it won't be seen. ### Billboard Design for Interfaces - **Use conventions.** Logo top-left, nav top/left, search = magnifying glass. Don't innovate on navigation to be clever. Innovate when you KNOW you have a better idea, otherwise use conventions. Even across languages and cultures, web conventions let people identify the logo, nav, search, and main content. - **Visual hierarchy is everything.** Related things are visually grouped. Nested things are visually contained. More important = more prominent. If everything shouts, nothing is heard. Start with the assumption everything is visual noise, guilty until proven innocent. - **Make clickable things obviously clickable.** No relying on hover states for discoverability, especially on mobile where hover doesn't exist. Shape, location, and formatting (color, underlining) must signal clickability without interaction. - **Eliminate noise.** Three sources: too many things shouting for attention (shouting), things not organized logically (disorganization), and too much stuff (clutter). Fix noise by removal, not addition. - **Clarity trumps consistency.** If making something significantly clearer requires making it slightly inconsistent, choose clarity every time. ### Navigation as Wayfinding Users on the web have no sense of scale, direction, or location. Navigation must always answer: What site is this? What page am I on? What are the major sections? What are my options at this level? Where am I? How can I search? Persistent navigation on every page. Breadcrumbs for deep hierarchies. Current section visually indicated. The "trunk test": cover everything except the navigation. You should still know what site this is, what page you're on, and what the major sections are. If not, the navigation has failed. ### The Goodwill Reservoir Users start with a reservoir of goodwill. Every friction point depletes it. **Deplete faster:** Hiding info users want (pricing, contact, shipping). Punishing users for not doing things your way (formatting requirements on phone numbers). Asking for unnecessary information. Putting sizzle in their way (splash screens, forced tours, interstitials). Unprofessional or sloppy appearance. **Replenish:** Know what users want to do and make it obvious. Tell them what they want to know upfront. Save them steps wherever possible. Make it easy to recover from errors. When in doubt, apologize. ### Mobile: Same Rules, Higher Stakes All the above applies on mobile, just more so. Real estate is scarce, but never sacrifice usability for space savings. Affordances must be VISIBLE: no cursor means no hover-to-discover. Touch targets must be big enough (44px minimum). Flat design can strip away useful visual information that signals interactivity. Prioritize ruthlessly: things needed in a hurry go close at hand, everything else a few taps away with an obvious path to get there. ## Priority Hierarchy Under Context Pressure Step 0 > Step 0.5 (mockups — generate by default) > Interaction State Coverage > AI Slop Risk > Information Architecture > User Journey > everything else. Never skip Step 0 or mockup generation (when the designer is available). Mockups before review passes is non-negotiable. Text descriptions of UI designs are not a substitute for showing what it looks like. ## PRE-REVIEW SYSTEM AUDIT (before Step 0) Before reviewing the plan, gather context: ```bash git log --oneline -15 git diff --stat ``` Then read: - The plan file (current plan or branch diff) - CLAUDE.md — project conventions - DESIGN.md — if it exists, ALL design decisions calibrate against it - TODOS.md — any design-related TODOs this plan touches Map: * What is the UI scope of this plan? (pages, components, interactions) * Does a DESIGN.md exist? If not, flag as a gap. * Are there existing design patterns in the codebase to align with? * What prior design reviews exist? (check reviews.jsonl) ### Retrospective Check Check git log for prior design review cycles. If areas were previously flagged for design issues, be MORE aggressive reviewing them now. ### UI Scope Detection Analyze the plan. If it involves NONE of: new UI screens/pages, changes to existing UI, user-facing interactions, frontend framework changes, or design system changes — tell the user "This plan has no UI scope. A design review isn't applicable." and exit early. Don't force design review on a backend change. Report findings before proceeding to Step 0. ## DESIGN SETUP ```bash # Bind $D to vibe-design (OpenAI image backend) when a key is configured. D=~/.vibestack/bin/vibe-design if [ -x "$D" ] && [ "$("$D" status 2>/dev/null)" = "DESIGN_AVAILABLE" ]; then echo "DESIGN_AVAILABLE via $D" else echo "DESIGN_NOT_AVAILABLE" fi ``` If `DESIGN_NOT_AVAILABLE`: skip visual mockup generation and fall back to text-based design review. **Where design artifacts go.** Every mockup, comparison board, and `approved.json` is written under `~/.vibestack/projects/$SLUG/designs/` — never to `.context/`, `docs/`, `/tmp/`, or anywhere inside the repo. They are the user's data, not the project's: they have to survive a reboot, outlive the branch they were made on, and never end up in a commit. ## Step 0: Design Scope Assessment ### 0A. Initial Design Rating Rate the plan's overall design completeness 0-10. - "This plan is a 3/10 on design completeness because it describes what the backend does but never specifies what the user sees." - "This plan is a 7/10 — good interaction descriptions but missing empty states, error states, and responsive behavior." Explain what a 10 looks like for THIS plan. ### 0B. DESIGN.md Status - If DESIGN.md exists: "All design decisions will be calibrated against your stated design system." - If no DESIGN.md: "No design system found. Recommend running /design-consultation first. Proceeding with universal design principles." ### 0C. Existing Design Leverage What existing UI patterns, components, or design decisions in the codebase should this plan reuse? Don't reinvent what already works. ### 0D. Focus Areas {{include lib/snippets/brain-preflight.md}} AskUserQuestion: "I've rated this plan {N}/10 on design completeness. The biggest gaps are {X, Y, Z}. I'll generate visual mockups next, then review all 7 dimensions. Want me to focus on specific areas instead of all 7?" **STOP.** Do NOT proceed until user responds. ## Step 0.5: Visual Mockups (DEFAULT when DESIGN_AVAILABLE) If the plan involves any UI — screens, pages, components, visual changes — AND the vibestack designer is available (`DESIGN_AVAILABLE` was printed during setup), **generate mockups immediately.** Do not ask permission. This is the default behavior. Tell the user: "Generating visual mockups with the vibestack designer. This is how we review design — real visuals, not text descriptions." The ONLY time you skip mockups is when: - `DESIGN_NOT_AVAILABLE` was printed (designer binary not found) - The plan has zero UI scope (pure backend/API/infrastructure) If the user explicitly says "skip mockups" or "text only", respect that. Otherwise, generate. **PLAN MODE EXCEPTION — ALWAYS RUN:** These commands write design artifacts to `~/.vibestack/projects/$SLUG/designs/` (user config directory, not project files). Mockups are design artifacts that inform the plan, not code changes. The vibestack designer outputs PNGs and HTML comparison boards for human review during the planning phase. Generating mockups during planning is the whole point. Allowed commands under this exception: - `mkdir -p ~/.vibestack/projects/$SLUG/designs/...` - `$D variants`, `$D check`, `$D compare` - `open` (to view a board or a mockup when no browser is already showing it) First, set up the output directory. Name it after the screen/feature being designed and today's date: ```bash eval "$(~/.vibestack/bin/vibe-slug 2>/dev/null)" _DESIGN_DIR="$HOME/.vibestack/projects/$SLUG/designs/-$(date +%Y%m%d)" mkdir -p "$_DESIGN_DIR" echo "DESIGN_DIR: $_DESIGN_DIR" ``` Replace `` with a descriptive kebab-case name (e.g., `homepage-variants`, `settings-page`, `onboarding-flow`). **Generate mockups ONE AT A TIME in this skill.** The inline review flow generates fewer variants and benefits from sequential control. Note: /design-shotgun uses parallel Agent subagents for variant generation, which works at Tier 2+ (15+ RPM). The sequential constraint here is specific to plan-design-review's inline pattern. For each UI screen/section in scope, construct a design brief from the plan's description (and DESIGN.md if present) and generate variants: ```bash $D variants --brief "" --count 3 --output-dir "$_DESIGN_DIR/" ``` After generation, run a cross-model quality check on each variant: ```bash $D check --image "$_DESIGN_DIR/variant-A.png" --brief "" ``` Flag any variants that fail the quality check. Offer to regenerate failures. If the command prints `DESIGN_check_NOT_SUPPORTED`, the configured generator makes images but does not critique them. Do the critique yourself: read each variant with the Read tool and judge it against the brief and the AI slop blacklist below, then flag failures the same way. **Do NOT show variants inline via Read tool and ask for preferences** — unless the board turns out to be unsupported and the inline fallback fires. Proceed directly to the Comparison Board + Feedback Loop section below. The comparison board IS the chooser — it has rating controls, comments, remix/regenerate, and structured feedback output. Showing mockups inline is a degraded experience. ### Comparison Board + Feedback Loop Create the comparison board and serve it over HTTP: ```bash $D compare --images "$_DESIGN_DIR/variant-A.png,$_DESIGN_DIR/variant-B.png,$_DESIGN_DIR/variant-C.png" --output "$_DESIGN_DIR/design-board.html" --serve ``` This command generates the board HTML, starts an HTTP server on a random port, and opens it in the user's default browser. **Run it in the background** with `&` because the server needs to stay running while the user interacts with the board. If it prints `DESIGN_compare_NOT_SUPPORTED`, the configured generator produces variants only and there is no board to serve. Skip to the inline fallback below — there is no feedback file to wait for, so nothing else in this section applies. Parse the port from stderr output: `SERVE_STARTED: port=XXXXX`. You need this for the board URL and for reloading during regeneration cycles. **PRIMARY WAIT: AskUserQuestion with board URL** After the board is serving, use AskUserQuestion to wait for the user. Include the board URL so they can click it if they lost the browser tab: "I've opened a comparison board with the design variants: http://127.0.0.1:/ — Rate them, leave comments, remix elements you like, and click Submit when you're done. Let me know when you've submitted your feedback (or paste your preferences here). If you clicked Regenerate or Remix on the board, tell me and I'll generate new variants." **Do NOT use AskUserQuestion to ask which variant the user prefers.** The comparison board IS the chooser. AskUserQuestion is just the blocking wait mechanism. **After the user responds to AskUserQuestion:** Check for feedback files next to the board HTML: - `$_DESIGN_DIR/feedback.json` — written when user clicks Submit (final choice) - `$_DESIGN_DIR/feedback-pending.json` — written when user clicks Regenerate/Remix/More Like This ```bash if [ -f "$_DESIGN_DIR/feedback.json" ]; then echo "SUBMIT_RECEIVED" cat "$_DESIGN_DIR/feedback.json" elif [ -f "$_DESIGN_DIR/feedback-pending.json" ]; then echo "REGENERATE_RECEIVED" cat "$_DESIGN_DIR/feedback-pending.json" rm "$_DESIGN_DIR/feedback-pending.json" else echo "NO_FEEDBACK_FILE" fi ``` The feedback JSON has this shape: ```json { "preferred": "A", "ratings": { "A": 4, "B": 3, "C": 2 }, "comments": { "A": "Love the spacing" }, "overall": "Go with A, bigger CTA", "regenerated": false } ``` **If `feedback.json` found:** The user clicked Submit on the board. Read `preferred`, `ratings`, `comments`, `overall` from the JSON. Proceed with the approved variant. **If `feedback-pending.json` found:** The user clicked Regenerate/Remix on the board. 1. Read `regenerateAction` from the JSON (`"different"`, `"match"`, `"more_like_B"`, `"remix"`, or custom text) 2. If `regenerateAction` is `"remix"`, read `remixSpec` (e.g. `{"layout":"A","colors":"B"}`) 3. Generate new variants with `$D variants`, folding the feedback into an updated brief 4. Create new board: `$D compare --images "..." --output "$_DESIGN_DIR/design-board.html"` 5. Reload the board in the user's browser (same tab): `curl -s -X POST http://127.0.0.1:PORT/api/reload -H 'Content-Type: application/json' -d '{"html":"$_DESIGN_DIR/design-board.html"}'` 6. The board auto-refreshes. **AskUserQuestion again** with the same board URL to wait for the next round of feedback. Repeat until `feedback.json` appears. **If `NO_FEEDBACK_FILE`:** The user typed their preferences directly in the AskUserQuestion response instead of using the board. Use their text response as the feedback. **INLINE FALLBACK:** Use this whenever no board is serving — either `$D compare` reported that boards are unsupported, or the server failed to start (no port available). Show each variant inline using the Read tool (so the user can see them), then use AskUserQuestion: "No comparison board is available, so I've shown the variants above. Which do you prefer? Any feedback?" This is the one path where AskUserQuestion may carry the variant choice itself. **After receiving feedback (any path):** Output a clear summary confirming what was understood: "Here's what I understood from your feedback: PREFERRED: Variant [X] RATINGS: [list] YOUR NOTES: [comments] DIRECTION: [overall] Is this right?" Use AskUserQuestion to verify before proceeding. **Save the approved choice:** ```bash echo '{"approved_variant":"","feedback":"","date":"'$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)'","screen":"","branch":"'$(git branch --show-current 2>/dev/null)'"}' > "$_DESIGN_DIR/approved.json" ``` **Do NOT use AskUserQuestion to ask which variant the user picked.** Read `feedback.json` — it already contains their preferred variant, ratings, comments, and overall feedback. Only use AskUserQuestion to confirm you understood the feedback correctly, never to re-ask what they chose. Note which direction was approved. This becomes the visual reference for all subsequent review passes. **Multiple variants/screens:** If the user asked for multiple variants (e.g., "5 versions of the homepage"), generate ALL as separate variant sets with their own comparison boards. Each screen/variant set gets its own subdirectory under `designs/`. Complete all mockup generation and user selection before starting review passes. **If `DESIGN_NOT_AVAILABLE`:** Tell the user: "The vibestack designer isn't set up yet — it needs `OPENAI_API_KEY` in your environment and `curl` on PATH. Proceeding with text-only review, but you're missing the best part." Then proceed to review passes with text-based review. ## Design Outside Voices (parallel) Use AskUserQuestion: > "Want outside design voices before the detailed review? Codex evaluates against OpenAI's design hard rules + litmus checks; Claude subagent does an independent completeness review." > > A) Yes — run outside design voices > B) No — proceed without If user chooses B, skip this step and continue. **Check Codex availability:** ```bash command -v codex >/dev/null 2>&1 && echo "CODEX_AVAILABLE" || echo "CODEX_NOT_AVAILABLE" ``` **If Codex is available**, launch both voices simultaneously: 1. **Codex design voice** (via Bash): ```bash TMPERR_DESIGN=$(mktemp /tmp/codex-design-XXXXXXXX) _REPO_ROOT=$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel) || { echo "ERROR: not in a git repo" >&2; exit 1; } command -v codex >/dev/null 2>&1 && codex exec "Read the plan file at [plan-file-path]. Evaluate this plan's UI/UX design against these criteria. HARD REJECTION — flag if ANY apply: 1. Generic SaaS card grid as first impression 2. Beautiful image with weak brand 3. Strong headline with no clear action 4. Busy imagery behind text 5. Sections repeating same mood statement 6. Carousel with no narrative purpose 7. App UI made of stacked cards instead of layout LITMUS CHECKS — answer YES or NO for each: 1. Brand/product unmistakable in first screen? 2. One strong visual anchor present? 3. Page understandable by scanning headlines only? 4. Each section has one job? 5. Are cards actually necessary? 6. Does motion improve hierarchy or atmosphere? 7. Would design feel premium with all decorative shadows removed? HARD RULES — first classify as MARKETING/LANDING PAGE vs APP UI vs HYBRID, then flag violations of the matching rule set: - MARKETING: First viewport as one composition, brand-first hierarchy, full-bleed hero, 2-3 intentional motions, composition-first layout - APP UI: Calm surface hierarchy, dense but readable, utility language, minimal chrome - UNIVERSAL: CSS variables for colors, no default font stacks, one job per section, cards earn existence For each finding: what's wrong, what will happen if it ships unresolved, and the specific fix. Be opinionated. No hedging." -C "$_REPO_ROOT" -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="high"' --enable web_search_cached < /dev/null 2>"$TMPERR_DESIGN" ``` Use a 5-minute timeout (`timeout: 300000`). After the command completes, read stderr: ```bash cat "$TMPERR_DESIGN" && rm -f "$TMPERR_DESIGN" ``` 2. **Claude design subagent** (via Agent tool): Dispatch a subagent with this prompt: "Read the plan file at [plan-file-path]. You are an independent senior product designer reviewing this plan. You have NOT seen any prior review. Evaluate: 1. Information hierarchy: what does the user see first, second, third? Is it right? 2. Missing states: loading, empty, error, success, partial — which are unspecified? 3. User journey: what's the emotional arc? Where does it break? 4. Specificity: does the plan describe SPECIFIC UI ("48px Söhne Bold header, #1a1a1a on white") or generic patterns ("clean modern card-based layout")? 5. What design decisions will haunt the implementer if left ambiguous? For each finding: what's wrong, severity (critical/high/medium), and the fix." **Error handling (all non-blocking):** - **Auth failure:** If stderr contains "auth", "login", "unauthorized", or "API key": "Codex authentication failed. Run `codex login` to authenticate." - **Timeout:** "Codex timed out after 5 minutes." - **Empty response:** "Codex returned no response." - On any Codex error: proceed with Claude subagent output only, tagged `[single-model]`. - If Claude subagent also fails: "Outside voices unavailable — continuing with primary review." Present Codex output under a `CODEX SAYS (design critique):` header. Present subagent output under a `CLAUDE SUBAGENT (design completeness):` header. **Synthesis — Litmus scorecard:** ``` DESIGN OUTSIDE VOICES — LITMUS SCORECARD: ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ Check Claude Codex Consensus ─────────────────────────────────────── ─────── ─────── ───────── 1. Brand unmistakable in first screen? — — — 2. One strong visual anchor? — — — 3. Scannable by headlines only? — — — 4. Each section has one job? — — — 5. Cards actually necessary? — — — 6. Motion improves hierarchy? — — — 7. Premium without decorative shadows? — — — ─────────────────────────────────────── ─────── ─────── ───────── Hard rejections triggered: — — — ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ ``` Fill in each cell from the Codex and subagent outputs. CONFIRMED = both agree. DISAGREE = models differ. NOT SPEC'D = not enough info to evaluate. **Pass integration (respects existing 7-pass contract):** - Hard rejections → raised as the FIRST items in Pass 1, tagged `[HARD REJECTION]` - Litmus DISAGREE items → raised in the relevant pass with both perspectives - Litmus CONFIRMED failures → pre-loaded as known issues in the relevant pass - Passes can skip discovery and go straight to fixing for pre-identified issues **Log the result:** ```bash ~/.vibestack/bin/vibe-review-log '{"skill":"design-outside-voices","timestamp":"'"$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)"'","status":"STATUS","source":"SOURCE","commit":"'"$(git rev-parse --short HEAD)"'"}' ``` Replace STATUS with "clean" or "issues_found", SOURCE with "codex+subagent", "codex-only", "subagent-only", or "unavailable". ## The 0-10 Rating Method For each design section, rate the plan 0-10 on that dimension. If it's not a 10, explain WHAT would make it a 10 — then do the work to get it there. Pattern: 1. Rate: "Information Architecture: 4/10" 2. Gap: "It's a 4 because the plan doesn't define content hierarchy. A 10 would have clear primary/secondary/tertiary for every screen." 3. Fix: Edit the plan to add what's missing 4. Re-rate: "Now 8/10 — still missing mobile nav hierarchy" 5. AskUserQuestion if there's a genuine design choice to resolve 6. Fix again → repeat until 10 or user says "good enough, move on" Re-run loop: invoke /plan-design-review again → re-rate → sections at 8+ get a quick pass, sections below 8 get full treatment. ### "Show me what 10/10 looks like" (requires design binary) If `DESIGN_AVAILABLE` was printed during setup AND a dimension rates below 7/10, offer to generate a visual mockup showing what the improved version would look like: ```bash eval "$(~/.vibestack/bin/vibe-slug 2>/dev/null)" _IDEAL_DIR="$HOME/.vibestack/projects/$SLUG/designs/ideal--$(date +%Y%m%d)" $D variants --brief "" --count 1 --output-dir "$_IDEAL_DIR" ``` Show the mockup to the user via the Read tool. This makes the gap between "what the plan describes" and "what it should look like" visceral, not abstract. If the design binary is not available, skip this and continue with text-based descriptions of what 10/10 looks like. ## Review Sections (7 passes, after scope is agreed) **Anti-skip rule:** Never condense, abbreviate, or skip any review pass (1-7) regardless of plan type (strategy, spec, code, infra). Every pass in this skill exists for a reason. "This is a strategy doc so design passes don't apply" is always wrong — design gaps are where implementation breaks down. If a pass genuinely has zero findings, say "No issues found" and move on — but you must evaluate it. **Anti-shortcut clause:** The plan file is the OUTPUT of the interactive review, not a substitute for it. Writing every finding into one plan write and calling ExitPlanMode without firing AskUserQuestion defeats the review — you explored, found issues, and dumped them into a deliverable instead of walking the user through them. If you have ANY non-trivial finding in any review pass, the path from finding to ExitPlanMode goes THROUGH AskUserQuestion. Zero findings in every pass is the only path to ExitPlanMode that bypasses AskUserQuestion. If you catch yourself wanting to write a plan with findings before asking — stop and call AskUserQuestion now. {{include lib/snippets/prior-learnings.md}} ### Pass 1: Information Architecture Rate 0-10: Does the plan define what the user sees first, second, third? FIX TO 10: Add information hierarchy to the plan. Include ASCII diagram of screen/page structure and navigation flow. Apply "constraint worship" — if you can only show 3 things, which 3? **STOP.** AskUserQuestion once per issue. Do NOT batch. Recommend + WHY. If no issues, say so and move on. Do NOT proceed until user responds. ### Pass 2: Interaction State Coverage Rate 0-10: Does the plan specify loading, empty, error, success, partial states? FIX TO 10: Add interaction state table to the plan: ``` FEATURE | LOADING | EMPTY | ERROR | SUCCESS | PARTIAL ---------------------|---------|-------|-------|---------|-------- [each UI feature] | [spec] | [spec]| [spec]| [spec] | [spec] ``` For each state: describe what the user SEES, not backend behavior. Empty states are features — specify warmth, primary action, context. **STOP.** AskUserQuestion once per issue. Do NOT batch. Recommend + WHY. ### Pass 3: User Journey & Emotional Arc Rate 0-10: Does the plan consider the user's emotional experience? FIX TO 10: Add user journey storyboard: ``` STEP | USER DOES | USER FEELS | PLAN SPECIFIES? -----|------------------|-----------------|---------------- 1 | Lands on page | [what emotion?] | [what supports it?] ... ``` Apply time-horizon design: 5-sec visceral, 5-min behavioral, 5-year reflective. **STOP.** AskUserQuestion once per issue. Do NOT batch. Recommend + WHY. ### Pass 4: AI Slop Risk Rate 0-10: Does the plan describe specific, intentional UI — or generic patterns? FIX TO 10: Rewrite vague UI descriptions with specific alternatives. ### Design Hard Rules **Classifier — determine rule set before evaluating:** - **MARKETING/LANDING PAGE** (hero-driven, brand-forward, conversion-focused) → apply Landing Page Rules - **APP UI** (workspace-driven, data-dense, task-focused: dashboards, admin, settings) → apply App UI Rules - **HYBRID** (marketing shell with app-like sections) → apply Landing Page Rules to hero/marketing sections, App UI Rules to functional sections **Hard rejection criteria** (instant-fail patterns — flag if ANY apply): 1. Generic SaaS card grid as first impression 2. Beautiful image with weak brand 3. Strong headline with no clear action 4. Busy imagery behind text 5. Sections repeating same mood statement 6. Carousel with no narrative purpose 7. App UI made of stacked cards instead of layout **Litmus checks** (answer YES/NO for each — used for cross-model consensus scoring): 1. Brand/product unmistakable in first screen? 2. One strong visual anchor present? 3. Page understandable by scanning headlines only? 4. Each section has one job? 5. Are cards actually necessary? 6. Does motion improve hierarchy or atmosphere? 7. Would design feel premium with all decorative shadows removed? **Landing page rules** (apply when classifier = MARKETING/LANDING): - First viewport reads as one composition, not a dashboard - Brand-first hierarchy: brand > headline > body > CTA - Typography: expressive, purposeful — no default stacks (Inter, Roboto, Arial, system) - No flat single-color backgrounds — use gradients, images, subtle patterns - Hero: full-bleed, edge-to-edge, no inset/tiled/rounded variants - Hero budget: brand, one headline, one supporting sentence, one CTA group, one image - No cards in hero. Cards only when card IS the interaction - One job per section: one purpose, one headline, one short supporting sentence - Motion: 2-3 intentional motions minimum (entrance, scroll-linked, hover/reveal) - Color: define CSS variables, avoid purple-on-white defaults, one accent color default - Copy: product language not design commentary. "If deleting 30% improves it, keep deleting" - Beautiful defaults: composition-first, brand as loudest text, two typefaces max, cardless by default, first viewport as poster not document **App UI rules** (apply when classifier = APP UI): - Calm surface hierarchy, strong typography, few colors - Dense but readable, minimal chrome - Organize: primary workspace, navigation, secondary context, one accent - Avoid: dashboard-card mosaics, thick borders, decorative gradients, ornamental icons - Copy: utility language — orientation, status, action. Not mood/brand/aspiration - Cards only when card IS the interaction - Section headings state what area is or what user can do ("Selected KPIs", "Plan status") **Universal rules** (apply to ALL types): - Define CSS variables for color system - No default font stacks (Inter, Roboto, Arial, system) - One job per section - "If deleting 30% of the copy improves it, keep deleting" - Cards earn their existence — no decorative card grids - NEVER use small, low-contrast type (body text < 16px or contrast ratio < 4.5:1 on body text) - NEVER put labels inside form fields as the only label (placeholder-as-label pattern — labels must be visible when the field has content) - ALWAYS preserve visited vs unvisited link distinction (visited links must have a different color) - NEVER float headings between paragraphs (heading must be visually closer to the section it introduces than to the preceding section) **AI Slop blacklist** (the 10 patterns that scream "AI-generated"): 1. Purple/violet/indigo gradient backgrounds or blue-to-purple color schemes 2. **The 3-column feature grid:** icon-in-colored-circle + bold title + 2-line description, repeated 3x symmetrically. THE most recognizable AI layout. 3. Icons in colored circles as section decoration (SaaS starter template look) 4. Centered everything (`text-align: center` on all headings, descriptions, cards) 5. Uniform bubbly border-radius on every element (same large radius on everything) 6. Decorative blobs, floating circles, wavy SVG dividers (if a section feels empty, it needs better content, not decoration) 7. Emoji as design elements (rockets in headings, emoji as bullet points) 8. Colored left-border on cards (`border-left: 3px solid `) 9. Generic hero copy ("Welcome to [X]", "Unlock the power of...", "Your all-in-one …(truncated)