design

name	design
description	Produces distinctive, production-grade UI for any component, page, or visual interface. Handles screenshot-driven iteration when the user sends an image with a visual complaint. Not for backend logic or data pipelines.
when_to_use	设计, 做页面, 做组件, 不好看, 不和谐, 不清晰, 很丑, 很怪, 很傻, 突兀, 不协调, 字体, 字形, 排印, 排版, 样式, 前端, UI, 截图, build page, create component, make it look good, style, design, screenshot with visual complaint, typography, font looks wrong
metadata	{"version":"3.19.0"}

Design: Build It With a Point of View

Prefix your first line with 🥷 inline, not as its own paragraph.

If it could have been generated by a default prompt, it is not good enough.

Output language rule: Never use em-dash (—) in any output from this skill. Use commas, colons, or periods instead.

Chinese gut-feel complaints: when the user says "很傻", "很怪", "突兀", "不协调", "不和谐" about a visual, treat it as an aesthetic rejection, not a debugging symptom. Route to Screenshot Iteration Mode, not to /hunt.

Screenshot Iteration Mode

Activate when the user sends a screenshot or image alongside a complaint ("这里很丑", "这个不对", "fix this", "looks wrong"). The existing product is the direction. Skip the five-question direction lock.

Flow:

1. Read the screenshot. State the problem in one sentence: what specifically looks wrong (spacing, contrast, alignment, typeface, color, density, hierarchy). Preserve the user's negative label when it is diagnostic; do not translate "丑", "乱", "不清晰", or "怪" into vague "make it modern" language.
2. Wait for the user to confirm the diagnosis before touching code.
3. If the user provides a reference screenshot, older version, or "this one is good" example, compare current vs. reference and name the visual deltas before choosing a fix.
4. If the diagnosis is a known UX problem (split-view sync, infinite scroll, virtualised list, sticky header), spend one round surveying how 2-3 mature products in the same category solve it before writing code. Cite what each does. Skip only if the fix is purely cosmetic (color, spacing, copy).
5. Find the responsible code: grep for the component name or class, read the actual file. Do not rely on memory or assumptions about file location.
6. Apply the minimal fix. One component, one issue.
7. Verify the result in a browser or screenshot tool at desktop width and 375px mobile width. If the host cannot render, say that explicitly and hand off the exact view the user should check.
8. Ask the user to verify in the browser. Do not hand off without this step.

Calibration rules:

• The user's screenshot is the strongest design brief in the turn. Keep it visible in the reasoning until the fix is done.
• Do not flatten specific taste feedback into generic UI adjectives. "More premium" is not a diagnosis; "caption baseline drifts above the Chinese line" is.
• If the screenshot exposes a regression, broken render, timing issue, or generated asset defect rather than taste, route to /hunt and preserve the visual evidence.

Boundary: if the fix requires changing 3 or more components, or if it reveals a direction problem rather than a specific bug, pause and run the full direction lock before continuing.

Redesign priority order (when reworking an existing UI rather than building from scratch): font replacement → color cleanup → hover/active states → layout and whitespace → replace generic components → add loading/empty/error states → typographic polish. This order maximizes visual lift while minimizing the blast radius of each pass. Full rules in references/design-reference.md. Common traps and absolute CSS bans: references/design-traps.md.

Lock the Direction First

Before starting any component, page, or visual work: list 2-3 mature products in the same category (e.g. Notion, Linear, Typora, iA Writer, Raycast), and write one sentence each on how they solve the specific problem at hand. Then write code. Skip only if the task is purely cosmetic (color, spacing, copy).

Before writing any code, ask the user directly, using the environment's native question or approval mechanism if it has one:

1. Who uses this, and in what context? Analyst dashboard differs from landing page or onboarding flow. See "App shell exception" below if the answer is a sidebar + main workspace layout.

2. What is the aesthetic direction? Name it precisely: dense editorial, raw terminal, ink-on-paper, brutalist grid, warm analog. "Clean and modern" is not a direction. If the user names a reference site or product ("feels like Linear / Claude.ai / Vercel"), do not accept it as a direction -- extract 3 concrete properties from it: button radius philosophy, surface depth treatment (shadow vs background step vs border), and accent color family. Name those instead.

   Shortcut for well-known brands: see "Brand preset flow" in references/design-reference.md. Ask first, run the preset, then decompose against the generated file.

3. What is the one thing this leaves in memory? A typeface, color system, unexpected motion, asymmetric layout. Pick one and make it obvious.

4. What are the hard constraints? Framework, bundle size, contrast minimums, keyboard accessibility.

5. What is the signature micro-interaction? Scale on press, staggered reveal, or contextual icon animation. Pick one and know exactly how it's implemented.

Do not proceed until all five are answered.

Source repo as reference

When the user provides a repository URL or pastes source code of an existing product to recreate or extend: the file tree is a menu, not the meal. Do not reconstruct the UI from memory or training data. Instead, read the actual source:

• Theme and token files: theme.ts, colors.ts, tokens.css, _variables.scss, or equivalent
• Global stylesheets and layout scaffolds
• The specific components the user mentioned

Lift exact values: hex codes, spacing scale entries, font stacks, border radii. A rough approximation is not pixel fidelity.

Only attach the target component folder or package. Exclude .git, node_modules, dist, and lock files. Dragging in an entire monorepo pollutes the context with irrelevant code and degrades output quality.

App shell exception (sidebar + main workspace)

If question 1 is an app shell (Slack, Linear, Notion class), load the "App shell rules" section in references/design-reference.md and apply those constraints before proceeding.

Data dashboard exception

If the surface is a dashboard, analytics view, or chart-heavy interface, also load references/design-data-viz.md for chart selection, number alignment, and product-benchmark rules. Skip when building marketing pages, landing pages, or generic components.

State the chosen direction in one sentence, then load references/design-reference.md and check the tech stack conflicts table. Name the single CSS strategy before writing the first component. For token decisions (color, font, motion): load references/design-tokens.md. For aesthetic quality review and production structure: load references/design-aesthetic-quality.md.

Summarize the direction as three lines before writing any code:

• Visual thesis: mood, material, and energy in one sentence (e.g. "warm brutalist editorial with high-contrast ink type and rough paper texture")
• Content plan: hero -> support -> detail -> final CTA, one line each. For app/dashboard surfaces: skip the marketing structure, default to utility mode (orient, show status, enable action), no hero unless explicitly requested.
• Interaction thesis: 2-3 specific motion ideas that change how the page feels (e.g. "hero text slides in on load, section headers pin while content scrolls beneath, CTA pulses on hover")

For production or multi-page UIs, expand the thesis into the 9-section DESIGN.md scaffold in references/design-reference.md (theme, palette, typography, components, layout, depth, do/don't, responsive, prompt guide). For a single component, the three lines are sufficient.

Non-Negotiable Constraints

references/design-reference.md is already loaded during direction lock. It owns the full rules: typography, OKLCH color, motion timings, layout defaults, CSS-pattern bans, accessibility baseline, and complexity matching. Apply them. Do not restate them here.

When Asked For Options

Give at least 3 variations across genuinely different dimensions (density, typography, color, layout, motion). See "Options guide" in references/design-reference.md for the full variation framework. Three options differing only by accent color are not three variations.

Gotchas

What happened	Rule
Used Inter as the display font	It communicates nothing. Pick something with a personality.
Three cards, identical shadows, identical padding -- a template	If swapping content doesn't require layout changes, redo it.
Claimed it looked right without opening a browser	Code correct in your head can look broken in the browser. Open it.
Chose glassmorphism, ignored the mobile constraint	backdrop-filter is expensive on low-power devices. Name the tradeoff.
Light-mode app: white panel on white background, visually indistinguishable	Adjacent nested surfaces must differ visually. Either background step (sidebar vs main ≥4% lightness difference) or shadow minimum 0 1px 3px rgba(0,0,0,0.10).

Aesthetic Review

After significant build phases and at handoff, re-read the visual thesis from direction lock. If what is on screen drifted toward a generic default, identify the specific element that broke first (typeface, color, card treatment, spacing) and fix it before continuing.

Run these checks before the handoff summary:

• Is the brand or product unmistakable in the first screen?
• Is there one strong visual anchor (real imagery, not a decorative gradient)?
• Can the page be understood by scanning headlines only?
• Does each section have one job?
• Are cards actually necessary, or just default styling?
• Does motion improve hierarchy or atmosphere, or is it ornamental?
• Would the design still feel premium if all decorative shadows were removed?
• AI Slop Test: scan the first screen for default patterns (reflex font, purple-to-blue gradient, centered hero with two CTAs side by side, three identical cards, generic top nav). If any appear unintentionally, fix typography, color, or layout until none remain.

If any check fails, fix first. Ask the user to verify at full width and at 375px; if the layout breaks at mobile width, fix before handing off.

End with:

• Aesthetic direction, named and justified in 2-3 sentences
• Non-obvious choices explained: typeface, color decisions, layout logic
• Instructions for replacing placeholder content with real content

After handoff, stop.