design-shotgun

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:

1. Read the brief or plan
2. Check for DESIGN.md, design-system docs, or existing UI patterns
3. Reuse product vocabulary that already exists in the repo
4. 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