| name | plan-design-review |
| description | Scored design plan review: 7 UI/UX dimensions rated 0-10, explains what would make each a 10, then fixes the plan. Run after /spec for UI-heavy features, or standalone on any plan with UI scope. |
| allowed-tools | Read, Edit, Grep, Glob, Bash, AskUserQuestion |
/plan-design-review $ARGUMENTS
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 is a better plan, not a document about the plan.
Do NOT make code changes. This is a plan review, not implementation.
Argument Parsing
$ARGUMENTS = path to plan file, or empty- If empty, find the most recent plan:
ls -lt docs/plans/*.md 2>/dev/null | head -5
- If no plans found: "No plans in
docs/plans/. Run /spec first." Then STOP.
Read the plan file.
Design Principles
- Empty states are features. "No items found." is not a design. Every empty state needs warmth, a primary action, and context.
- Every screen has a hierarchy. What does the user see first, second, third? If everything competes, nothing wins.
- Specificity over vibes. "Clean, modern UI" is not a design decision. Name the font, the spacing scale, the interaction pattern.
- Edge cases are user experiences. 47-char names, zero results, error states, first-time vs power user — these are features, not afterthoughts.
- AI slop is the enemy. Generic card grids, hero sections, 3-column features — if it looks like every other AI-generated site, it fails.
- Responsive is not "stacked on mobile." Each viewport gets intentional design.
- Accessibility is not optional. Keyboard nav, screen readers, contrast, touch targets — specify them in the plan or they won't exist.
- Subtraction default. If a UI element doesn't earn its pixels, cut it. Feature bloat kills products faster than missing features.
- 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.
- Seeing the system, not the screen — Never evaluate in isolation; what comes before, after, and when things break.
- Empathy as simulation — Run mental simulations: bad signal, one hand free, boss watching, first time vs. 1000th time.
- Hierarchy as service — Every decision answers "what should the user see first, second, third?" Respecting their time, not prettifying pixels.
- Constraint worship — Limitations force clarity. "If I can only show 3 things, which 3 matter most?"
- The question reflex — First instinct is questions, not opinions. "Who is this for? What did they try before this?"
- Edge case paranoia — What if the name is 47 chars? Zero results? Network fails? Colorblind? RTL language?
- The "Would I notice?" test — Invisible = perfect. The highest compliment is not noticing the design.
- Principled taste — "This feels wrong" is traceable to a broken principle. Taste is debuggable, not subjective.
- Subtraction default — "As little design as possible" (Rams). "Subtract the obvious, add the meaningful" (Maeda).
- Time-horizon design — First 5 seconds (visceral), 5 minutes (behavioral), 5-year relationship (reflective) — design for all three simultaneously (Norman).
- Design for trust — Every design decision either builds or erodes trust. Pixel-level intentionality about safety, identity, and belonging (Gebbia).
- Storyboard the journey — Before touching pixels, storyboard the full emotional arc. Every moment is a scene with a mood, not just a screen with a layout.
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.
Priority Hierarchy
Step 0 > Interaction State Coverage > AI Slop Risk > Information Architecture > User Journey > everything else.
Never skip Step 0, interaction states, or AI slop assessment.
Pre-Review Audit
Before reviewing the plan, gather context:
- Read the plan file
- Check for DESIGN.md or design system documentation
- Map UI scope: pages, components, interactions the plan touches
- Check for existing design patterns in the codebase to align with
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.
Step 0: Design Scope Assessment
0A. Initial 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. 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
AskUserQuestion: "I've rated this plan {N}/10 on design completeness. The biggest gaps are {X, Y, Z}. Want me to review all 7 dimensions, or focus on specific areas?"
STOP. Do NOT proceed until user responds.
The 0-10 Rating Method
For each pass, 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:
- Rate: "Information Architecture: 4/10"
- Gap: "It's a 4 because the plan doesn't define content hierarchy."
- What 10 looks like: "A 10 would have clear primary/secondary/tertiary for every screen."
- Fix: Edit the plan to add what's missing
- Re-rate: "Now 8/10 — still missing mobile nav hierarchy"
- AskUserQuestion if there's a genuine design choice to resolve
- Fix again → repeat until 10 or user says move on
Review Passes (7 passes)
For each issue found, use AskUserQuestion individually — one issue per call. Present options, recommendation, and WHY mapped to a specific Design Principle above. Do NOT batch.
Pass 1: Information Architecture
Rate 0-10: Does the plan define what the user sees first, second, third?
Fix to 10: Add information hierarchy. Include ASCII diagram of screen/page structure and navigation flow. Apply constraint worship — if you can only show 3 things, which 3?
STOP. AskUserQuestion per issue.
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:
FEATURE | LOADING | EMPTY | ERROR | SUCCESS | PARTIAL
-----------------|---------|-------|-------|---------|--------
[each feature] | [spec] | [spec]| [spec]| [spec] | [spec]
For each state: describe what the user SEES, not backend behavior. Empty states are features — specify warmth, a primary action, context.
STOP. AskUserQuestion per issue.
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 per issue.
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.
- "Cards with icons" → what differentiates these from every SaaS template?
- "Hero section" → what makes this hero feel like THIS product?
- "Clean, modern UI" → meaningless. Replace with actual design decisions.
- "Dashboard with widgets" → what makes this NOT every other dashboard?
STOP. AskUserQuestion per issue.
Pass 5: Design System Alignment
Rate 0-10: Does the plan align with DESIGN.md (if exists)?
Fix to 10: Annotate plan with specific tokens/components from the design system. Flag any new component — does it fit the existing vocabulary? If no DESIGN.md, flag the gap.
STOP. AskUserQuestion per issue.
Pass 6: Responsive & Accessibility
Rate 0-10: Does the plan specify mobile/tablet, keyboard nav, screen readers?
Fix to 10: Add responsive specs per viewport — not "stacked on mobile" but intentional layout changes. Add accessibility: keyboard nav patterns, ARIA landmarks, touch target sizes (44px min), color contrast requirements.
STOP. AskUserQuestion per issue.
Pass 7: Unresolved Design Decisions
Surface ambiguities that will haunt implementation:
DECISION NEEDED | IF DEFERRED, WHAT HAPPENS
-----------------------------|---------------------------
What does empty state look like? | Engineer ships "No items found."
Mobile nav pattern? | Desktop nav hides behind hamburger
...
Each decision = one AskUserQuestion with recommendation + WHY + alternatives. Edit the plan with each decision as it's made.
Required Outputs
NOT in Scope
Design decisions considered and explicitly deferred, with one-line rationale each.
What Already Exists
Existing DESIGN.md, UI patterns, and components that the plan should reuse.
Completion Summary
DESIGN PLAN REVIEW — COMPLETION SUMMARY
────────────────────────────────────────
System Audit: [DESIGN.md status, UI scope]
Step 0: [initial rating, focus areas]
Pass 1 (Info Arch): ___/10 → ___/10
Pass 2 (States): ___/10 → ___/10
Pass 3 (Journey): ___/10 → ___/10
Pass 4 (AI Slop): ___/10 → ___/10
Pass 5 (Design Sys): ___/10 → ___/10
Pass 6 (Responsive): ___/10 → ___/10
Pass 7 (Decisions): ___ resolved, ___ deferred
────────────────────────────────────────
NOT in scope: ___ items
What already exists: written
Decisions made: ___ added to plan
Decisions deferred: ___ (listed below)
Overall score: ___/10 → ___/10
If all passes 8+: "Plan is design-complete."
If any below 8: note what's unresolved and why.
Unresolved Decisions
If any AskUserQuestion goes unanswered, note it. Never silently default.
Formatting Rules
- NUMBER issues (1, 2, 3...) and LETTER options (A, B, C...)
- Label with NUMBER + LETTER (e.g., "3A", "3B")
- One sentence max per option
- Rate before and after each pass for scannability
- After each pass, pause and wait for feedback
Suppressions
Do NOT:
- Flag style-only suggestions. That's for linters.
- Re-argue scope after Step 0.
- Suggest performance optimizations. That's
/multi-review's domain.
- Raise issues already acknowledged in the plan's limitations section.
