css-architecture-design-system-review

name	css-architecture-design-system-review
description	Review CSS for specificity and cascade-layer discipline, design-token (custom-property) conformance, and responsive strategy correctness (container queries vs. media queries), catching specificity wars, hardcoded-value token drift, and non-reflowing layouts that fail WCAG 1.4.10/1.4.4 before they compound into unmaintainable stylesheets.
allowed-tools	Read Grep Glob Bash(git diff:*) WebFetch
metadata	{"author":"github: Raishin","version":"0.1.0","updated":"2026-07-02","category":"architecture"}

CSS Architecture & Design System Review

Purpose

CSS at scale degrades through two silent mechanisms: specificity creep (engineers reaching for !important or ID selectors to win cascade fights instead of fixing the underlying layer structure) and design-token drift (hardcoded values reappearing next to a token system, diverging visual output over time). Neither shows up as a compile error or a failing test — they show up eighteen months later as an unmaintainable stylesheet nobody wants to touch. This skill catches both at review time, plus the responsive-strategy and WCAG visual-presentation failures that are CSS's specific accessibility responsibility.

When to use

Use this skill when the user asks to:

• review a CSS/component-styling diff for specificity, cascade, or maintainability issues,
• audit a codebase's design-token (CSS custom-property) conformance,
• decide between container queries and media queries for a responsive pattern,
• establish or enforce a cascade-layer strategy (@layer reset, base, tokens, components, utilities, overrides),
• check layout resilience against WCAG 2.2 reflow (1.4.10) and resize-text (1.4.4) criteria.

Do not use this skill for:

• JavaScript/framework component architecture — use the matching framework-specific review skill instead,
• live visual-regression testing or contrast-ratio measurement — that requires a runtime tool, not static review,
• choosing a CSS methodology from scratch with no existing code — that is a greenfield design conversation, not a review.

Context7 Documentation Protocol

• Resolve the MDN Web Docs library ID with resolve-library-id (matched result: /mdn/content) before citing any cascade-layer, container-query, or custom-property specificity claim.
• Before asserting cascade-layer precedence, !important interaction, or container-query browser-support behavior, call query-docs against /mdn/content and cite the section — do not assert from memory. Cascade-layer !important precedence is inverted relative to normal-declaration precedence and is easy to misstate without checking.
• If Context7 is unavailable, fall back to the official_docs URLs in this skill's metadata.json and label the claim documentation-based, unverified against current release.
• Never assume a browser-support baseline (e.g., "container queries are safe everywhere now") without checking current docs; treat support claims as version/date-sensitive, not fixed facts.

Lean operating rules

• Never approve new !important without a documented cascade-layer justification — it is a symptom that the layer/selector structure should be fixed, not a valid quick fix. Note: !important precedence is inverted across layers (earlier-declared layers win for important declarations), so verify actual winning behavior against the declared @layer order rather than assuming a simple override.
• Never approve new ID-selector styling for components; treat it as a specificity-escalation risk that will require !important or worse to override later.
• In any codebase with an established design-token system, flag hardcoded color/spacing/typography values and name the nearest token substitute — do not silently allow token drift. Distinguish token tiers (primitive → semantic → component) when recommending a substitute; do not point a component-level override at a raw primitive if a semantic token exists.
• Do not bikeshed methodology (BEM vs. utility-first vs. CSS Modules vs. cascade layers) when a convention is already established; enforce consistency with what exists over personal preference.
• Query current MDN/W3C docs for @layer/@container support and semantics before ruling — container queries only reached broad Baseline status in 2023 and cascade-layer support nuances (especially !important interaction) vary; never assert current support from memory.
• Distinguish container queries (component depends on its container's size) from media queries (component depends on the viewport) — recommending the wrong one for the actual dependency is a correctness bug, not a style preference. A component intended for reuse across differently-sized containers (sidebar, main content, modal) needs a container query; a page-level layout shift needs a media query.
• Never treat CSS as an access-control boundary; display:none/visibility:hidden hiding an affordance is not a substitute for server-side authorization. Flag this as a HIGH-severity finding, not a style note, whenever hidden-but-present markup carries privileged data or actions.
• Flag anything needing live visual-regression or contrast-ratio measurement as a residual risk requiring live-runtime verification, not asserted from static analysis alone.
• Flag attribute-selector-plus-background-image patterns (e.g. input[value^="a"] { background: url(...) }) as a potential CSS-based data-exfiltration vector — they can leak user-controlled attribute values via network requests.
• Flag third-party @import rules with no accompanying Subresource Integrity or CSP style-src consideration as a supply-chain risk, not a performance nitpick.

References

Load these only when needed:

• Cascade layer strategy — use when establishing or auditing a @layer order for a codebase, or resolving a specificity conflict between two legitimate rules.
• Design token conformance patterns — use when auditing hardcoded-value drift against an existing custom-property token system, including token-tier (primitive vs. semantic vs. component) conventions.
• Responsive strategy decision guide — use when deciding container query vs. media query, or auditing reflow/resize-text compliance at 400%/200% zoom.

Response minimum

Return, at minimum:

• the specificity/cascade verdict per flagged selector, with its computed specificity value when relevant,
• a token-conformance report distinguishing token-referenced values from hardcoded ones,
• the responsive-strategy verdict (container query vs. media query appropriateness) for any new responsive rule,
• the recommended cascade-layer placement for new rules,
• residual risk notes for anything requiring live visual-regression or contrast-checker verification beyond this static review.