designpowers-critique

name	designpowers-critique
description	Use when reviewing design work against a plan, design principles, or quality standards — provides structured critique covering design intent, accessibility, consistency, and user impact. This is the Designpowers critique skill — use this instead of the Superpowers design-critique when working within a Designpowers workflow

Design Critique

Critique is a structured evaluation of whether the design achieves what it set out to do, for the people it set out to serve — and whether it does so with the craft quality the project demands. This skill ensures review is rigorous, specific, and constructive. When a taste profile exists, critique includes aesthetic evaluation against that profile — not arbitrary personal preference, but the specific emotional target, craft standards, and quality bar the team agreed on.

When to Use

• After completing a design task or set of tasks
• Before handoff to engineering
• When a design decision feels uncertain
• At scheduled review points in a design plan

Process

Step 1: Gather Review Inputs

Before critiquing, assemble:

• The design brief (from design-discovery)
• The design plan (from writing-design-plans)
• The design principles (from design-strategy)
• The personas (from inclusive-personas)
• The current design artefacts (mockups, code, prototypes)

Step 2: Evaluate Against Intent

For each design decision, ask:

1. Does it solve the stated problem? Refer to the design brief
2. Does it serve the identified personas? All of them, not just the primary user
3. Does it follow the design principles? Specifically which principles it upholds or violates
4. Does it align with the design system? If applicable

Step 3: Craft and Taste Evaluation

If a taste profile exists (from design-taste), evaluate the design against it:

Emotional target:

• Does the design evoke the intended feeling? (Reference the taste profile's emotional target)
• Would the user describe this experience with the words in the emotional target?

Craft standards:

• Spacing has intentional rhythm — not just "correct," but considered
• Colour usage follows the restraint/vibrancy rules in the taste profile
• Shadows, borders, and radii use a consistent vocabulary
• Typography choices serve both readability and personality
• The overall composition feels cohesive — like one designer, not a committee

Reference benchmark:

• This design would sit comfortably next to the taste references
• The quality level matches what was agreed (prototype/production/flagship)

Craft findings format:

Element	Taste expectation	Current state	Gap
[Element]	[What the taste profile calls for]	[What exists]	[Specific difference]

If no taste profile exists, note this as an observation: "No taste profile was created for this project. Craft evaluation is based on general quality standards only."

Step 4: Accessibility Review

Every critique includes an accessibility evaluation:

Perceivable:

• All content is available to screen readers
• Colour is not the sole indicator of meaning
• Contrast ratios meet WCAG AA minimum
• Text is resizable to 200% without loss of function
• Alt text is present and appropriate

Operable:

• All interactions are keyboard accessible
• Focus order is logical
• Focus indicators are visible
• Touch targets meet 44x44px minimum
• Motion respects prefers-reduced-motion
• No keyboard traps

Understandable:

• Language is plain and clear
• Navigation is consistent
• Error messages explain the problem and the solution
• Form labels are visible and associated
• Behaviour is predictable

Robust:

• Semantic HTML is used correctly
• ARIA is used only when necessary and correctly
• The design works across supported browsers and assistive technology

Step 5: Classify Issues

Rate each finding:

Severity	Definition	Action
Critical	Blocks access for some users or violates the design intent	Must fix before proceeding
Major	Degrades experience significantly but does not block access	Should fix before handoff
Minor	Improvement opportunity, does not block or significantly degrade	Fix if time allows
Note	Observation or suggestion for future iteration	Document for next cycle

Step 6: Write the Critique

# Design Critique: [Feature/Task Name]

**Reviewed against:** [Design brief, plan, principles — with references]

**Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]

## Summary
[2-3 sentences: overall assessment]

## Craft Assessment
[Does the design meet the taste profile's quality bar? Emotional target alignment? Reference benchmark?]

## Findings

### Critical
- [Finding]: [Explanation] → [Recommended action]

### Major
- [Finding]: [Explanation] → [Recommended action]

### Minor
- [Finding]: [Explanation] → [Recommended action]

### Notes
- [Observation]

## Accessibility Status
[Pass/Fail against WCAG AA with specific gaps]

## Recommendation
[Proceed / Revise and re-review / Rethink approach]

Step 7: Present and Discuss

Present findings to the user. For each critical or major issue, explain:

• What the issue is
• Who it affects (reference specific personas)
• What the recommended fix is
• Why it matters

Critical issues block progress. They must be resolved before moving to handoff.

Step 8: Record Design Debt

After the critique is complete and the fix round is determined:

1. Identify all Minor and Note severity findings that will NOT be fixed in this round
2. Invoke design-debt-tracker to capture these as debt items in the Design Debt Register
3. Each deferred item must include: who is affected, suggested fix, and why it was deferred

Do not silently drop Minor findings. They either get fixed or they get tracked.

Integration

• Called by: writing-design-plans (at review checkpoints)
• Reviews output from: ui-composition, interaction-design, accessible-content, cognitive-accessibility, adaptive-interfaces, design-system-alignment
• Calls: Relevant design skills for fixes, design-debt-tracker for deferred findings, then design-handoff when critique passes