review

name	review
description	Run a systematic quality audit on a completed UXSpec — design intent, consistency, accessibility, and state coverage

Review: Spec Quality Audit

Systematic quality pass on a completed UXSpec before shipping. Checks design intent, consistency, accessibility, state coverage, and copy quality.

When to Use

After all phases are complete and the spec compiles successfully. Before opening a PR or handing off for implementation.

Checks

1. AI Slop Test

If you showed this spec to someone and said "AI generated this," would they believe you? Check for:

• Generic font tokens (Inter, Roboto, system-ui with no personality)
• Purple-to-blue gradient color tokens
• Cards inside cards in any $visual
• Everything centered in every state
• Glassmorphism effects (blur + transparency + border)
• Hero metrics with sparkline decorations
• Identical grid layouts repeated across states
• Gradient text in descriptions

If any are present, they need justification or replacement.

2. Hierarchy Check (Squint Test)

For each state's $visual, imagine blurring your vision:

• Can you identify the primary action?
• Can you distinguish primary content from secondary?
• Are groups visually distinct from each other?
• Is there one clear focal point, not three competing ones?

If everything looks the same weight, spacing and typography tokens need work.

3. State Coverage

• Does every leaf state have a $visual?
• Are empty, loading, error, and success states present where needed?
• Does each error state have a specific message and recovery action?
• Does each loading state explain what's happening?
• Does each empty state offer a next action?
• Are there dead-end states with no outbound transitions?

4. Token Consistency

• Are all visual values token references, not hard-coded?
• Are similar elements using the same tokens? (Two buttons with different padding tokens = bug)
• Are there defined tokens that nothing references? (Dead tokens)
• Do color tokens maintain WCAG contrast against their backgrounds?
• Is the spacing scale consistent (no arbitrary gaps)?

5. Copy Review

• Is every $description specific enough to produce a consistent implementation?
• Are button labels action-specific? ("Submit" → "Create account")
• Do error messages explain and suggest, not blame?
• Are empty states helpful, not apologetic?
• Is terminology consistent? (Don't mix "delete" / "remove" / "trash")

6. Accessibility

• Does every interactive element have a testId?
• Do icon buttons and abstract elements have aria.label?
• Do dynamic regions have aria.live?
• Is keyboard navigation defined for every state? (keyboard bindings, onEnter.focus)
• Is there a visible focus state for every interactive element?
• Do any states rely on color alone to convey information?

7. Runtime Correctness

• Does every event referenced in transitions exist in $events?
• Does every context field referenced in expressions exist in $context?
• Do all assign paths start with context.?
• Are there guards that could be permanently false (unreachable transitions)?
• Is focus managed on every state entry that changes the interactive surface?

Output

Report findings as:

• Critical — blocks implementation or produces broken UI (missing states, unreachable paths, accessibility failures)
• Important — produces inconsistent or confusing UI (vague descriptions, token misuse, copy issues)
• Nice to have — refinements (animation polish, spacing tweaks, copy tone)

Principle

A review catches what the phases miss. Each phase focuses on building one layer; the review checks that all layers work together. The goal isn't perfection — it's confidence that the spec communicates clearly and handles the real world.