tuyv Review Page
Audit a built page by turning two adversarial reviewers loose on it, fixing what they find, and re-running them until a fresh round comes back green. Each reviewer is a subagent prompted to assume the page is wrong and hunt for proof — never to rubber-stamp it. You (the orchestrator) own the Figma pull, the triage, and the fixes; the reviewers only report. This is the QA half of building a page — pair it with /new-page, or run it standalone against any existing page.
Work the steps in order. Each ends on a checkable condition — don't start the next until the current one is met.
Step 0 — Ground truth
You need two things before any review:
- The live page. Start
pnpm dev, load the route (locale-stripped foren:/<route>/), confirm HTTP 200. A 500 is a build/asset error — fix that first; there is nothing to audit on a broken page. - The design source. A Figma link/selection is the gold standard. A written spec serves the copy reviewer but not the pixel-level design checks. No source at all → the copy reviewer has nothing to sync against; say so and confirm the user still wants a design-system-only pass.
Done when: the page serves 200 and the design source is known (or its absence is confirmed).
Step 1 — Capture both sides
The reviewers compare the page as it renders against the design as it's specified. Capture both once, to a scratch dir, and pass the paths to the subagents — don't make each reviewer re-pull Figma (reads drift between pulls, and it burns rate limits).
- Design. Read the Figma fresh — never a read from an earlier turn:
get_metadatafor the frame tree,get_screenshotper region,get_design_contextfor the text,get_variable_defsfor tokens. Save the region screenshots; keep the text/token dump. - Live page. Full-page screenshot with
playwright-cli, plus per-section shots for a long page. Save them beside the design shots.
Done when: design and live-page artifacts are saved and their paths are known.
Step 2 — Spawn the adversarial reviewers
Read both briefs in reviewers/ and spawn one subagent per brief, in parallel — a single message with two Agent calls. Give each subagent its brief verbatim, the route, and the artifact paths from Step 1. Each returns a structured findings list — {location, claim, evidence, fix, severity} — and nothing else. Reviewers report; they never edit (two agents editing in parallel would collide).
reviewers/copy.md— every string on the page matches the Figma/source copy.reviewers/design-system.md— components, spacing, heading sizes, and colors are the design system's, with no custom CSS bolted onto primitives.
Done when: both subagents have returned their findings lists.
Step 3 — Triage
Adversarial reviewers over-report by design. You judge each finding before touching code — keep the real ones, drop the noise. Two calls need judgment:
- Intentional copy divergence. A string differs because the design is stale, or because it's a templated/localized value — not a copy bug. Confirm against the source, not the reviewer's assumption.
- Justified custom CSS. Custom CSS chasing pixel parity on a primitive is a finding; custom CSS the design genuinely requires (a one-off the system can't express) is acceptable per "match, don't mimic." Don't strip styling the design needs.
Show the user the confirmed findings as a table — Region · Finding · Fix · Severity — and flag anything ambiguous for their call. This is their window into what the reviewers saw.
Done when: every finding is confirmed or dropped, and the confirmed table has been shown to the user.
Step 4 — Fix
Apply the confirmed findings yourself, reuse-first — a variant, not custom CSS; the right primitive, not a re-invention. Load the design-system skill if you haven't, for the component and token calls.
Done when: every confirmed finding is fixed in the working tree.
Step 5 — Re-review until green
Re-capture the live page (it changed; the Figma side didn't — reuse Step 1's design artifacts) and re-spawn the same reviewers. The loop is green when a fresh adversarial round returns zero confirmed findings. Until then: triage → fix → re-review.
Cap it: if the loop isn't green after 3 rounds, stop and hand the user the stubborn findings — a finding that survives three fixes usually needs a human design call, not another pass.
Done when: a fresh round is green, or the 3-round cap is hit and the remaining findings are handed off.