critique

name	critique
description	Review UI and UX quality from a design perspective using anti-slop checks, usability heuristics, cognitive-load analysis, and persona-based red flags.
argument-hint	[area]
user-invocable	true

Critique

Use this flow when the goal is design judgment rather than raw implementation or technical QA.

Preparation

1. Load impeccable first.
2. If design context is missing, run impeccable teach.
3. Confirm what the target interface is trying to help the user accomplish.
4. Load these local references:
   • reference/cognitive-load.md
   • reference/heuristics-scoring.md
   • reference/personas.md

Two-pass review

Pass A: design-director review

Review the interface for:

• anti-slop tells,
• hierarchy and clarity,
• composition and rhythm,
• copy tone,
• emotional fit,
• state design,
• and overall usability.

Pass B: deterministic checks where available

If the impeccable CLI is available in the environment, run its detector and include those findings.

If the CLI is not available, perform an explicit manual anti-pattern sweep using the umbrella impeccable rules and say so in the report.

Report shape

• Design health score out of 40 using Nielsen heuristics
• Anti-pattern verdict
• Overall impression
• What is working
• Priority issues ordered by impact
• Persona red flags
• Minor observations
• Questions or decisions that would most improve the next pass

Each priority issue should include:

• severity (P0 to P3),
• what is wrong,
• why it matters,
• and which follow-up flow fits best.

Persona handling

Select the two or three personas that best match the interface type. If .impeccable.md contains a concrete audience, add a project-specific persona only when the context clearly supports it.

Next-step behavior

If the findings clearly point to action, recommend a short sequence such as typeset, colorize, adapt, and polish.

If the critique reveals unresolved product-direction questions, ask only the targeted questions that matter for the next pass.