メニュー
This skill is for interface design — dashboards, admin panels, apps, tools, and interactive products. NOT for marketing design (landing pages, marketing sites, campaigns).
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
SOC 職業分類に基づく
| name | interface-design |
| description | This skill is for interface design — dashboards, admin panels, apps, tools, and interactive products. NOT for marketing design (landing pages, marketing sites, campaigns). |
Source: ui-skills.com.
Build interface design with craft and consistency.
Use for: Dashboards, admin panels, SaaS apps, tools, settings pages, data interfaces.
Not for: Landing pages, marketing sites, campaigns. Redirect those to /frontend-design.
You will generate generic output. Your training has seen thousands of dashboards. The patterns are strong.
You can follow the entire process below — explore the domain, name a signature, state your intent — and still produce a template. Warm colors on cold structures. Friendly fonts on generic layouts. "Kitchen feel" that looks like every other app.
This happens because intent lives in prose, but code generation pulls from patterns. The gap between them is where defaults win.
The process below helps. But process alone doesn't guarantee craft. You have to catch yourself.
Defaults don't announce themselves. They disguise themselves as infrastructure — the parts that feel like they just need to work, not be designed.
Typography feels like a container. Pick something readable, move on. But typography isn't holding your design — it IS your design. The weight of a headline, the personality of a label, the texture of a paragraph. These shape how the product feels before anyone reads a word. A bakery management tool and a trading terminal might both need "clean, readable type" — but the type that's warm and handmade is not the type that's cold and precise. If you're reaching for your usual font, you're not designing.
Navigation feels like scaffolding. Build the sidebar, add the links, get to the real work. But navigation isn't around your product — it IS your product. Where you are, where you can go, what matters most. A page floating in space is a component demo, not software. The navigation teaches people how to think about the space they're in.
Data feels like presentation. You have numbers, show numbers. But a number on screen is not design. The question is: what does this number mean to the person looking at it? What will they do with it? A progress ring and a stacked label both show "3 of 10" — one tells a story, one fills space. If you're reaching for number-on-label, you're not designing.
Token names feel like implementation detail. But your CSS variables are design decisions. --ink and --parchment evoke a world. --gray-700 and --surface-2 evoke a template. Someone reading only your tokens should be able to guess what product this is.
The trap is thinking some decisions are creative and others are structural. There are no structural decisions. Everything is design. The moment you stop asking "why this?" is the moment defaults take over.
Before touching code, answer these. Not in your head — out loud, to yourself or the user.
Who is this human? Not "users." The actual person. Where are they when they open this? What's on their mind? What did they do 5 minutes ago, what will they do 5 minutes after? A teacher at 7am with coffee is not a developer debugging at midnight is not a founder between investor meetings. Their world shapes the interface.
What must they accomplish? Not "use the dashboard." The verb. Grade these submissions. Find the broken deployment. Approve the payment. The answer determines what leads, what follows, what hides.
What should this feel like? Say it in words that mean something. "Clean and modern" means nothing — every AI says that. Warm like a notebook? Cold like a terminal? Dense like a trading floor? Calm like a reading app? The answer shapes color, type, spacing, density — everything.
If you cannot answer these with specifics, stop. Ask the user. Do not guess. Do not default.
For every decision, you must be able to explain WHY.
If your answer is "it's common" or "it's clean" or "it works" — you haven't chosen. You've defaulted. Defaults are invisible. Invisible choices compound into generic output.
The test: If you swapped your choices for the most common alternatives and the design didn't feel meaningfully different, you never made real choices.
If another AI, given a similar prompt, would produce substantially the same output — you have failed.
This is not about being different for its own sake. It's about the interface emerging from the specific problem, the specific user, the specific context. When you design from intent, sameness becomes impossible because no two intents are identical.
When you design from defaults, everything looks the same because defaults are shared.
Saying "warm" and using cold colors is not following through. Intent is not a label — it's a constraint that shapes every decision.
If the intent is warm: surfaces, text, borders, accents, semantic colors, typography — all warm. If the intent is dense: spacing, type size, information architecture — all dense. If the intent is calm: motion, contrast, color saturation — all calm.
Check your output against your stated intent. Does every token reinforce it? Or did you state an intent and then default anyway?
This is where defaults get caught — or don't.
Generic output: Task type → Visual template → Theme Crafted output: Task type → Product domain → Signature → Structure + Expression
The difference: time in the product's world before any visual or structural thinking.
Do not propose any direction until you produce all four:
Domain: Concepts, metaphors, vocabulary from this product's world. Not features — territory. Minimum 5.
Color world: What colors exist naturally in this product's domain? Not "warm" or "cool" — go to the actual world. If this product were a physical space, what would you see? What colors belong there that don't belong elsewhere? List 5+.
Signature: One element — visual, structural, or interaction — that could only exist for THIS product. If you can't name one, keep exploring.
Defaults: 3 obvious choices for this interface type — visual AND structural. You can't avoid patterns you haven't named.
Your direction must explicitly reference:
The test: Read your proposal. Remove the product name. Could someone identify what this is for? If not, it's generic. Explore deeper.
Before showing the user, look at what you made.
Ask yourself: "If they said this lacks craft, what would they mean?"
That thing you just thought of — fix it first.
Your first output is probably generic. That's normal. The work is catching it before the user has to.
Run these against your output before presenting:
The swap test: If you swapped the typeface for your usual one, would anyone notice? If you swapped the layout for a standard dashboard template, would it feel different? The places where swapping wouldn't matter are the places you defaulted.
The squint test: Blur your eyes. Can you still perceive hierarchy? Is anything jumping out harshly? Craft whispers.
The signature test: Can you point to five specific elements where your signature appears? Not "the overall feel" — actual components. A signature you can't locate doesn't exist.
The token test: Read your CSS variables out loud. Do they sound like they belong to this product's world, or could they belong to any project?
If any check fails, iterate before showing.
This is the backbone of craft. Regardless of direction, product type, or visual style — this principle applies to everything.
Surfaces must be barely different but still distinguishable. Study Vercel, Supabase, Linear. Their elevation changes are so subtle you almost can't see them — but you feel the hierarchy. Not dramatic jumps. Not obviously different colors. Whisper-quiet shifts.
Borders must be light but not invisible. The border should disappear when you're not looking for it, but be findable when you need to understand structure. If borders are the first thing you notice, they're too strong. If you can't tell where regions begin and end, they're too weak.
The squint test: Blur your eyes at the interface. You should still perceive hierarchy — what's above what, where sections divide. But nothing should jump out. No harsh lines. No jarring color shifts. Just quiet structure.
This separates professional interfaces from amateur ones. Get this wrong and nothing else matters.
Every pattern has infinite expressions. No interface should look the same.
A metric display could be a hero number, inline stat, sparkline, gauge, progress bar, comparison delta, trend badge, or something new. A dashboard could emphasize density, whitespace, hierarchy, or flow in completely different ways. Even sidebar + cards has infinite variations in proportion, spacing, and emphasis.
Before building, ask:
NEVER produce identical output. Same sidebar width, same card grid, same metric boxes with icon-left-number-big-label-small every time — this signals AI-generated immediately. It's forgettable.
The architecture and components should emerge from the task and data, executed in a way that feels fresh. Linear's cards don't look like Notion's. Vercel's metrics don't look like Stripe's. Same concepts, infinite expressions.
Every product exists in a world. That world has colors.
Before you reach for a palette, spend time in the product's world. What would you see if you walked into the physical version of this space? What materials? What light? What objects?
Your palette should feel like it came FROM somewhere — not like it was applied TO something.
Beyond Warm and Cold: Temperature is one axis. Is this quiet or loud? Dense or spacious? Serious or playful? Geometric or organic? A trading terminal and a meditation app are both "focused" — completely different kinds of focus. Find the specific quality, not the generic label.
Color Carries Meaning: Gray builds structure. Color communicates — status, action, emphasis, identity. Unmotivated color is noise. One accent color, used with intention, beats five colors used without thought.
Pick a base unit and stick to multiples. Consistency matters more than the specific number. Random values signal no system.
Keep it symmetrical. If one side is 16px, others should match unless there's a clear reason.
Choose ONE approach and commit:
Don't mix approaches.
Sharper feels technical. Rounder feels friendly. Pick a scale and apply consistently.
Headlines need weight and tight tracking. Body needs readability. Data needs monospace. Build a hierarchy.
Build from primitives: foreground (text hierarchy), background (surface elevation), border (separation hierarchy), brand, and semantic (destructive, warning, success). Every color should trace back to these. No random hex values — everything maps to the system.
Fast micro-interactions (~150ms), smooth easing. No bouncy/spring effects.
Every interactive element needs states: default, hover, active, focus, disabled. Data needs states too: loading, empty, error. Missing states feel broken.
Native <select> and <input type="date"> can't be styled. Build custom components.
Be invisible. Don't announce modes or narrate process.
Never say: "I'm in ESTABLISH MODE", "Let me check system.md..."
Instead: Jump into work. State suggestions with reasoning.
Lead with your exploration and recommendation, then confirm:
"Domain: [5+ concepts from the product's world]
Color world: [5+ colors that exist in this domain]
Signature: [one element unique to this product]
Rejecting: [default 1] → [alternative], [default 2] → [alternative], [default 3] → [alternative]
Direction: [approach that connects to the above]"
[AskUserQuestion: "Does that direction feel right?"]
Read .interface-design/system.md and apply. Decisions are made.
When you finish building something, always offer to save:
"Want me to save these patterns for future sessions?"
If yes, write to .interface-design/system.md:
This compounds — each save makes future work faster and more consistent.
For more detail on specific topics:
references/principles.md — Code examples, specific values, dark modereferences/validation.md — Memory management, when to update system.md/interface-design:status — Current system state/interface-design:audit — Check code against system/interface-design:extract — Extract patterns from codeUse this skill when the user wants to test a business idea, strategy, or initiative against real-world risk. Triggers include: 'test my idea', 'what are the riskiest assumptions', 'help me validate this', 'run EMT on this', 'extract assumptions', 'assumption mapping', 'what could go wrong with this plan', 'pressure test this', 'validate this plan', 'what could go wrong with this strategy', 'identify hidden risk in this idea', or any request to pressure-test a business decision before committing resources. Runs a guided Extract → Map → Test system based on David J. Bland's Precoil methodology.
Calibrate an LLM judge against human labels using data splits, TPR/TNR, and bias correction. Use after writing a judge prompt (write-judge-prompt) when you need to verify alignment before trusting its outputs. Do NOT use for code-based evaluators (those are deterministic; test with standard unit tests).
Generate beautiful, self-contained HTML pages that visually explain systems, code changes, plans, and data. Use when the user asks for a diagram, architecture overview, diff review, plan review, project recap, comparison table, or any visual explanation of technical concepts. Also use proactively when you are about to render a complex ASCII table (4+ rows or 3+ columns) — present it as a styled HTML page instead.
This skill should be used when shaping a software change and needing to breadboard the solution at the right level of abstraction (places, affordances, connections), including mapping an existing system via UI + code affordances, producing a wiring diagram, a parts/BOM plan, a fit check, and (when relevant) an extract-vs-duplicate analysis.
Clarify requirements before implementing. Do not use automatically, only when invoked explicitly.
This skill should be used when a user needs a demo package that starts with a live demo (not slides) and produces both a demo script and a navigable single-file HTML runbook, including caveats, respectful competitive comparison, and LLM architecture details (RAG, evals, observability).