| name | design-critique |
| description | Get structured design feedback on usability, visual hierarchy, accessibility, and consistency. Use when sharing a Figma URL, screenshot, or describing a design for review. |
| argument-hint | <Figma URL, screenshot, or description> |
| allowed-tools | ["mcp__claude_ai_Figma__get_design_context","mcp__claude_ai_Figma__get_screenshot","mcp__claude_ai_Figma__get_metadata","mcp__claude_ai_Figma__get_libraries","mcp__claude_ai_Figma__search_design_system","Read"] |
| paths | ["**/*.css","**/*.scss","**/*.figma","**/*.sketch","**/design/**","**/ui/**","**/components/**"] |
Design Critique
Provide structured, actionable design feedback across multiple dimensions.
When Triggered
Activate when the user says "critique", "review this design", "give me feedback", "what do you think of this design", or shares a design asking for opinions.
Usage
/design-critique $ARGUMENTS
Review the design: @$1
If a Figma URL is provided, pull the design using Figma MCP. If a file is referenced, read it. Otherwise, ask the user to describe or share their design.
What to Ask (if missing)
- The design: Figma URL, screenshot, or detailed description
- Context: What is this? Who is it for? What stage (exploration, refinement, final)?
- Focus (optional): "Focus on mobile" or "Focus on the onboarding flow"
Critique Framework
1. First Impression (2 seconds)
- What draws the eye first? Is that correct?
- What's the emotional reaction?
- Is the purpose immediately clear?
2. Usability
- Can the user accomplish their goal?
- Is the navigation intuitive?
- Are interactive elements obvious?
- Are there unnecessary steps?
3. Visual Hierarchy
- Is there a clear reading order?
- Are the right elements emphasized?
- Is whitespace used effectively?
- Is typography creating the right hierarchy?
4. Consistency
- Does it follow the design system?
- Are spacing, colors, and typography consistent?
- Do similar elements behave similarly?
5. Accessibility
- Color contrast ratios (>= 4.5:1 normal text, >= 3:1 large text)
- Touch target sizes (>= 44x44px)
- Text readability
- Alternative text for images
Feedback Principles
- Be specific: "The CTA competes with the navigation" not "the layout is confusing"
- Explain why: Connect feedback to design principles or user needs
- Suggest alternatives: Don't just identify problems, propose solutions
- Acknowledge what works: Good feedback includes positive observations
- Match the stage: Early exploration gets different feedback than final polish
Output Format
## Design Critique: [Design Name]
### Overall Impression
[1-2 sentence first reaction — what works, what's the biggest opportunity]
### Usability
| Finding | Severity | Recommendation |
|---------|----------|----------------|
| [Issue] | Critical / Moderate / Minor | [Fix] |
### Visual Hierarchy
- **What draws the eye first**: [Element] — [Is this correct?]
- **Reading flow**: [How does the eye move through the layout?]
- **Emphasis**: [Are the right things emphasized?]
### Consistency
| Element | Issue | Recommendation |
|---------|-------|----------------|
| [Typography/spacing/color] | [Inconsistency] | [Fix] |
### Accessibility
- **Color contrast**: [Pass/fail for key text]
- **Touch targets**: [Adequate size?]
- **Text readability**: [Font size, line height]
### What Works Well
- [Positive observation 1]
- [Positive observation 2]
### Priority Recommendations
1. **[Most impactful change]** — [Why and how]
2. **[Second priority]** — [Why and how]
3. **[Third priority]** — [Why and how]
Figma Integration
If the user provides a Figma URL, use the Figma MCP to pull the design and inspect components, tokens, and layers. Compare against the existing design system for consistency.
Local Code Integration
When working with local files:
- Read CSS/SCSS files to check token usage and consistency
- Read component files to verify implementation matches design intent
- Check recent git changes for design-related modifications that may need review
