| name | design-shotgun |
| description | Use when you need 3-5 intentionally different UI directions before committing to a single design approach |
| allowed-tools | Read, Grep, Glob, Bash, AskUserQuestion |
/design-shotgun $ARGUMENTS
Generate multiple intentional design directions for a feature brief or plan. This is divergence before commitment.
Do NOT write code. Do NOT edit the plan. Your output is design options plus a recommendation strong enough to carry into /product-review DESIGN or /plan-design-review.
Arguments
$ARGUMENTS = brief text, plan path, or empty--count N = number of directions, default 3, clamp to 3-5- If empty, use the most recent plan in
docs/plans/
- If no brief or plan exists: ask the user for a short feature description, then stop until you have one
Phase 1: Ground in Reality
Before inventing directions:
- Read the brief or plan
- Check for
DESIGN.md, design-system docs, or existing UI patterns
- Reuse product vocabulary that already exists in the repo
- Extract hard constraints:
- target users
- device posture
- accessibility expectations
- trust or safety requirements
- existing brand or component constraints
If the repo already has a strong design language, push variation through hierarchy, interaction model, pacing, and emotional tone. Do not propose something that obviously fights the product's established visual system.
Phase 2: Generate Distinct Directions
Produce N directions that are meaningfully different, not cosmetic reskins.
Each direction must include:
1. Name
A short memorable label.
2. Core Idea
Two to three sentences describing the concept and the user impression it creates.
3. Information Hierarchy
What the user sees first, second, and third.
4. Interaction Model
What the main interaction pattern is:
- dashboard
- guided flow
- command surface
- editorial narrative
- split-pane workspace
- feed/timeline
- another concrete pattern
5. Mobile and Responsive Posture
How the concept changes on smaller screens. Not "stack it on mobile." Be specific.
6. Accessibility and Trust Watchouts
What needs care so the design stays usable and credible.
7. Why This Is Not Generic
Name the exact choices that keep it from becoming AI slop. If the direction still sounds like "clean modern cards," rewrite it.
8. Implementation Risk
Call out where this direction is easy, medium, or high risk for the current codebase.
Phase 3: Force Separation
After drafting the directions, compare them directly. If any two would produce roughly the same screen with different styling, rewrite until they diverge on structure or behavior.
Use a compact comparison table:
| Direction | Best For | Main Risk | Distinguishing Move |
|---|
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
Phase 4: Recommend One
Pick a single recommended direction and explain:
- why it fits the product and codebase best
- what it sacrifices versus the other options
- what must be preserved if the team proceeds
Required Ending
Finish with:
Recommended Handoff
Give the user the exact next step:
/product-review DESIGN if the concept still needs product challenge/plan-design-review if a plan exists and needs design completion
Design Handoff Block
Provide a short block that can be pasted into a plan:
Recommended direction: ...
Primary user impression: ...
Hierarchy: ...
Interaction model: ...
Responsive posture: ...
Accessibility/trust requirements: ...
Must-not-lose differentiators: ...
Rules
- Default to 3 directions unless the user asks for more
- Do not exceed 5 directions
- Specificity over vibes
- Reuse existing design language when present
- Variation must be structural, not palette-swapping
- No implementation plan, no component inventory, no code suggestions
