design-review

name	design-review
description	Conduct a peer design review on a UX spec, draft design, or user-facing surface and emit a structured review report across six UX dimensions. Loaded into the calling agent's context; the calling agent (`@ux-designer`) drives the review, the skill enforces the format authority — six dimensions, severity ladder, recommendation ladder, required sections, validation rules. No file written; the report is emitted into the agent's context. Invoke BEFORE implementation (spec/draft review). For post-implementation verification use Skill(design-qa). Trigger: "design review", "review UX spec", "peer design review", "review this design".
argument-hint	<scope>
allowed-tools	["AskUserQuestion","Bash","Glob","Grep","Read","Monitor"]

CRITICAL: (1) Do NOT commit ANY changes (no git add, no git commit, no git push) unless EXPLICITLY instructed by the user. (2) This is a leaf skill. You MUST NOT spawn sub-agents, invoke Skill() recursively, use Agent() or SendMessage, or form/manage a team. The calling agent handles peer messaging and Docket comments after this skill returns.

Design Review — Peer Review of a Design Artifact

You are the Design Reviewer. You conduct a peer design review on the artifact named by <scope> (UX spec, draft, design proposal, or inline surface description) and emit a structured report back to the calling agent's context. No file is written. The skill is the format authority — six UX dimensions, severity ladder, recommendation ladder, required sections, validation.

Docs paths (this skill). Master: ~/.claude/skills/team-doctrine/references/docs-paths.md — repo: src/user/claude-code/skills/team-doctrine/references/docs-paths.md (maintained copy).

• Writes: none — report into the calling agent's context.
• Reads: docs/ux/, docs/tdd/, docs/adr/, docs/spec/.
• Always singular docs/spec/ — never docs/specs/.

Role Detection

This skill is callable ONLY by @ux-designer. Match the calling agent's identifier (from prompt context); if the caller is not @ux-designer, ABORT.

Abort message:

Error: Skill(design-review) is restricted to @ux-designer. Calling agent: {agent}.

Argument Handling

The argument is a single positional <scope> (free-text). No flags.

If <scope> is missing or empty:

Error: Usage: Skill(design-review, "<scope>") — name what to review (UX spec path, draft document path, TDD path with user-facing surfaces, or inline surface description).

Scope resolution (apply rules in order; first match wins):

Form	Detection	Sources
UX spec path	Bash test -e {path} and path matches docs/ux/.*\.md	Read the spec
TDD path	Bash test -e {path} and path matches docs/tdd/.*\.md	Read the TDD; focus review on user-facing surface sections
Draft document path	Bash test -e {path} and path ends in .md	Read the file directly
Inline surface description	Otherwise (free-text description of the design under review)	The description IS the artifact — review the design as articulated; cross-reference docs/ux/, docs/tdd/, docs/spec/ for precedent

If <scope> matches a path-like pattern (contains / or ends in .md) but the file does not exist, ABORT:

Error: Could not resolve <scope>: '{scope}'. File not found. Pass an existing path or a free-text inline description.

If extra positional args follow <scope>, ignore them silently.

When to Use

• Reviewing a draft UX spec authored by another agent (peer review before consensus).
• Reviewing a @staff-engineer TDD that proposes user-facing surfaces (CLI, API, config format, error copy).
• Reviewing a @senior-engineer design proposal embedded in a design comment or chat.
• Operator requests feedback on a design decision before it sets precedent.

Doubling Rule

When invoked under team-lead orchestration (or @ux-designer orchestration), design review defaults to a single reviewer — the persistent ux-advisor consulted via SendMessage, no ephemeral spawn — per ~/.claude/agents/team-lead.md Rule 8; the single verdict is final. Opt up to a doubled panel only when a Rule 8 trigger fires: the calling layer then spawns ux-advisor + one ephemeral design-review-{N} (Agent()), both dispatched in the SAME turn (eager parallel dispatch). The ephemeral design-review-{N} delivers its verdict, then AWAITS the calling layer's lead-initiated shutdown_request (it never self-originates shutdown); the ephemeral lifecycle is owned by the calling layer per ~/.claude/agents/team-lead.md Rule 7 / step 14. Verdict reconciliation (any Blocker blocks; findings merge with (spec section, surface) dedupe; contradictions surface to operator via AskUserQuestion or Skill(vote, ...); reviewers never address the operator directly) per ~/.claude/agents/team-lead.md step 14. On double-ephemeral failure (probe-once + respawn both abort), the calling layer falls back to ux-advisor alone AND annotates the consolidated message header verbatim DEGRADED: single-reviewer (ephemeral failed 2×). Standalone-mode invocations follow the calling agent's own discretion.

When NOT to Use

• QA of shipped implementation against an accepted UX spec — that's Skill(design-qa, ...).
• Production code review against engineering dimensions — that's Skill(code-review-verdict, ...), callable by @staff-engineer or @security-engineer.
• Acceptance-criteria verification — that's Skill(verify-ac, ...), callable by @sdet.
• Authoring a new UX spec — use Skill(ux-spec, ...).
• Multi-agent consensus voting on a design — use Skill(vote, ...) after this skill produces a review.

Pre-flight

1. Detect role per Role Detection. ABORT if caller is not @ux-designer.

2. Resolve <scope> per Argument Handling. ABORT if unresolvable.

3. Read the artifact:

   • For UX spec / TDD / draft path: Read the file; capture frontmatter (maturity, status, owner) and the workflow list.
   • For inline surface description: treat the description as the artifact text.

4. Cross-reference precedent:

   • Grep -rl "{key-term}" docs/ux/ docs/tdd/ docs/spec/ docs/adr/ to locate related specs, ADRs (under docs/adr/), and project specs.
   • Identify any cross-surface precedent already established (CLI flag conventions, API error shapes, error-copy patterns).

5. Empty-artifact guard: if the artifact has no inspectable design content (empty file or description under 10 words), ABORT:

   Error: Resolved scope contains no reviewable design content — expand the description or pass a non-empty file.
   

Review Procedure

Simulate the user journey. Walk through every workflow articulated in the artifact — don't just read. For each workflow, trace: entry point, expected interactions, success path, error branches, accessibility hooks, copy, exit point. Designs that read well but break on simulation are reject-class.

Six UX Dimensions

Apply all six dimensions, weighted by what the artifact touches. Mark unaffected dimensions N/A in the checklist:

1. Usability — task efficiency, cognitive load, discoverability, mental-model fit, learnability.
2. Consistency — alignment with existing docs/ux/ patterns, cross-surface naming, terminology, flag/copy conventions, same-concept-same-name.
3. Accessibility — WCAG 2.2 AA floor, keyboard reachability, NO_COLOR support, color-not-sole-indicator, screen-reader semantics, contrast. On visual surfaces, the design must specify the rendered EFFECT at real delivery resolution (screenshare, streamed video, small viewport), not just the CSS/token value — a cue that meets the contract may fail to read once compressed. Every color/visual cue must be paired with a text fallback so a degraded render still carries meaning.
4. Information Hierarchy — what's primary, what's secondary, progressive disclosure, scan-ability, signal-to-noise.
5. Error Handling — every workflow has error branches; messages follow "what happened → why → what to do now"; specific values/paths in errors; degraded modes covered.
6. Performance Perception — feedback latency, loading states, perceived progress, silence-is-the-worst-UX violations, animation timing.

Severity Ladder

Severity	Meaning
Blocker	Must fix before approval: broken workflow, inaccessible interaction, missing critical error state, cross-surface precedent violation, WCAG AA failure
Concern	Should fix or explicitly justify: pattern divergence, missing edge case, weak error copy, accessibility gap on non-critical path
Suggestion	Consider for this or future iteration: polish, minor improvement, alternative phrasing
Question	Need clarification to complete the review
Praise	Pattern worth highlighting and replicating across surfaces — routes to What's Strong, not What Needs Work

Recommendation Ladder

Recommendation	Meaning
Approve	All six dimensions pass or are N/A; no Blockers or Concerns; minor Suggestions/Praise allowed
Approve with follow-up	Real issues exist but are low-impact polish; calling agent annotates follow-up
Block	One or more Blockers; cannot ship until resolved
Redesign	Fundamental interaction model is wrong; incremental edits won't fix it — proposes restart
Incremental Improvement	Foundation is sound and users have existing muscle memory; recommend bounded improvements rather than a redesign

Common Discipline

• Ask clarifying questions first when intent is ambiguous — use AskUserQuestion per the calling agent's structural contract. Peer SendMessage is the calling agent's job, not this skill's. Do NOT ask when the answer is in the artifact.
• Honest critique with evidence. Do NOT default to Approve. A justified Block with a concrete alternative is more valuable than an unexamined Approve. Cite the artifact section, workflow, or precedent that grounds each finding — banned hedges: "clearly", "obviously", "should work", "definitely".
• Pair every Blocker with a concrete alternative. A Blocker without an alternative is half a finding.
• Report every finding — do NOT self-filter. Report each issue found, including low-severity and uncertain ones, each tagged with its severity (Blocker/Concern/Suggestion/Question/Praise — classification, not suppression). Filtering and ranking happen downstream (calling agent / team-lead reconciliation), never here — declining to report a finding because it seems minor is a recall defect.

Output Contract

Emit the review verbatim to the calling agent's context. Do NOT echo the raw artifact body. Do NOT save to disk. Do NOT add a preamble or trailing notes outside the format. If the harness blocks this skill's invocation (Stage-2 auto-mode classifier), render the review directly per THIS format authority — every required section in order and the Approve / Approve with follow-up / Block / Redesign / Incremental Improvement recommendation ladder — never an improvised structure.

## Design Review: {Artifact Title}

### Assessment
{1-3 sentences: what is being designed, who the user is, what problem it solves, and the scope of this review (which dimensions are in focus, which are N/A and why)}

### Artifact
- Source: {path or "Inline description"}
- Type: {UX spec / TDD / draft / inline}
- Maturity / status: {maturity from frontmatter — and status if present, or "N/A" for inline}

### What's Strong
- {praise 1 — pattern + why it works}
- {praise 2}
- ... or "None to highlight yet"

### What Needs Work

**Blockers** ({count}):
- [{dimension}] {finding} — {required alternative or fix}
- ... or "None"

**Concerns** ({count}):
- [{dimension}] {finding} — {recommended fix or justification ask}
- ... or "None"

**Suggestions** ({count}):
- [{dimension}] {finding}
- ... or "None"

**Questions** ({count}):
- {open question for the artifact author}
- ... or "None"

### Open Questions
- {unresolved decision the artifact must address before approval, or "None"}

### Dimension Checklist
| Dimension | Status |
|---|---|
| Usability | pass / concern / fail / N/A |
| Consistency | pass / concern / fail / N/A |
| Accessibility | pass / concern / fail / N/A |
| Information Hierarchy | pass / concern / fail / N/A |
| Error Handling | pass / concern / fail / N/A |
| Performance Perception | pass / concern / fail / N/A |

### Recommendation
One of: **Approve** / **Approve with follow-up** / **Block** / **Redesign** / **Incremental Improvement**

### Next Steps
{What the calling agent should do — e.g., deliver the structured verdict to the calling agent / team-lead, escalate to vote for cross-surface precedent, route Blockers to the author for revision, propose redesign with concrete starting points}

Validation Before Emit

Before emitting the report, verify in the calling agent's context:

1. Recommendation is on the ladder — exactly one of Approve / Approve with follow-up / Block / Redesign / Incremental Improvement.
2. Recommendation matches severity counts — any Blocker ⇒ Block / Redesign / Incremental Improvement; any Concern with no Blockers ⇒ Approve with follow-up / Redesign / Incremental Improvement (plain Approve forbidden); zero Blockers and zero Concerns ⇒ Approve permitted (Redesign / Incremental Improvement still allowed when the body argues a rethink or bounded improvement path).
3. Every Blocker cites a dimension — the [dimension] tag at the start of each Blocker bullet must name one of the six dimensions.
4. Every Concern names a spec section or workflow — the bullet body must reference the artifact section, workflow, or surface it affects.
5. Every Blocker has an alternative or required fix — a Blocker bullet without — separator and an alternative/fix fragment is a defect.
6. Dimension Checklist covers all six dimensions — each row present with one of pass/concern/fail/N/A. Off-by-one is a defect.
7. Empty severity buckets explicit — every bucket (Blockers/Concerns/Suggestions/Questions) reads None or lists items. Silent omission is a defect.
8. Required sections present, in order — Assessment, Artifact, What's Strong, What Needs Work, Open Questions, Dimension Checklist, Recommendation, Next Steps.
9. Placeholder scan — body contains no literal {Artifact Title}, {dimension}, {count}, TBD, or TODO text outside of code-fenced examples.
10. Epistemic discipline scan — no banned confidence phrases ("clearly," "obviously," "should work," "definitely," "100%," "guaranteed") in What's Strong, What Needs Work, Open Questions, or Next Steps. Use evidence-anchored language ("verified at {section}," "the workflow at {path} shows …," "assumption: …"). A hit is a defect.

If any check fails, ABORT:

Error: validation failed: {section/field} — {detail}.

The calling agent corrects in its own context and re-invokes Skill(design-review, "<scope>").

Save & Return

No file is written (Output Contract owns the emission rules). End with the confirmation line:

Design review emitted ({recommendation}).

where {recommendation} is one of Approve / Approve with follow-up / Block / Redesign / Incremental Improvement.

The calling agent owns (in order):

• SendMessage the verdict per ~/.claude/agents/ux-designer.md Inter-Agent Communication triggers (under team-lead orchestration, to team-lead — who reconciles both reviewers per the Doubling Rule before routing Blockers/Concerns to the author; standalone, to the author directly).
• Escalating to vote if the review touches cross-surface precedent, conflicts with a TDD, spans 3+ surfaces, or otherwise meets a vote-criticality threshold — standalone: Skill(vote, ...); team mode: NEVER Skill(vote) (nests a team) — docket vote create + delegation_request to team-lead per ~/.claude/agents/ux-designer.md Design Spec Approval.
• Mirroring the review outcome as a Docket comment using [UX→@agent] {summary} per the operator-visibility contract.

Self-check before ending the turn: the calling agent MUST self-check — "Did I SendMessage the verdict (structured, not summarized) this same turn?" (in team mode, to team-lead; standalone, to the author). The skill's in-context emission is the calling agent's working artifact, not the deliverable; the deliverable is the SendMessage. A silent turn after Design review emitted (...) is silent-completion — the dominant defect class across this skill family (code-review-verdict, verify-ac, design-review, design-qa).

On any abort during Pre-flight, Review Procedure, or Validation Before Emit: emit Error: {one-line cause} and end without producing a review.