ui-review

name	ui-review
description	Review an existing UI and produce prioritized, actionable findings across design, usability, cognitive load, accessibility, responsiveness, theming, performance, and implementation integrity. Use when asked for a UI critique, frontend audit, pre-release review, screenshot or URL evaluation, or an explanation of what is confusing, generic, inaccessible, fragile, or unfinished. Keep the review read-only unless the user separately asks for fixes.
license	Apache-2.0
metadata	{"provenance":"Derived and substantially modified from Impeccable 4.1.1 critique and audit"}

UI Review

Review any concrete UI target without requiring project context files, a detector, persistence, or a larger workflow.

Resolve the target

Identify the exact surface: URL, screenshot, route, component, source path, or flow. Narrow vague requests to the smallest useful target and state the chosen scope.

Use the strongest available evidence:

• inspect the rendered interface when it is available;
• exercise the primary path rather than judging a still frame alone;
• inspect relevant source and shared conventions when code is available;
• evaluate representative desktop, intermediate, and mobile sizes;
• distinguish observed behavior from inference.

Do not start a server, install tooling, or mutate a browser session unless the user authorized that operation.

Run two passes

Keep the first pass independent of mechanical findings so lint-like output does not anchor visual judgment.

When permitted and useful, separate agents may run the two passes in parallel using self-contained context. They are not required. Without them, complete and record Pass A before beginning Pass B. Independence of judgment matters; dependence on a particular orchestration tool does not.

Pass A: experience and design

Evaluate:

• product specificity versus category-interchangeable design;
• primary task, reading order, hierarchy, and information architecture;
• discoverability, feedback, control, consistency, and recovery;
• typography, color, layout, density, imagery, and motion;
• cognitive load and decision complexity;
• emotional fit and high-stakes moments;
• loading, empty, error, success, disabled, and permission states;
• relevant user perspectives.

Read references/experience-rubric.md for the complete heuristic, cognitive-load, persona, and severity rubrics.

For a full review, score all applicable Nielsen heuristics from 0–4, mark truly inapplicable items n/a, and calculate the result against the applicable maximum.

Pass B: implementation evidence

Evaluate only what the available evidence supports:

• accessibility;
• responsive behavior and input methods;
• theming and token consistency;
• performance risks;
• implementation integrity and repeated shortcuts.

Read references/technical-rubric.md for the technical dimensions and scoring anchors.

For a full web review with source or runtime evidence, score the five applicable technical dimensions from 0–4. For a screenshot-only or deliberately scoped review, mark dimensions that cannot be verified not assessed; do not guess scores.

Use existing project checks when they are already available and relevant. Automated findings are evidence to verify, not proof. Do not require or install a proprietary detector.

Synthesize

Do not concatenate two reports. Explain:

• where visual judgment and technical evidence agree;
• which issues are visible only in behavior or source;
• which automated findings are false positives or uncertain;
• which strengths should be preserved.

Prioritize by user impact, frequency, reach, and remediation cost. A short list of high-confidence problems is better than padded output.

Output

For a full review, use this structure:

1. Method and evidence: target, rendered states, source, checks, and limitations.
2. Experience health: Nielsen table, total against applicable maximum, cognitive-load result, and product-specificity verdict.
3. Technical health: five-dimension table and total against applicable maximum.
4. Overall verdict: clearest judgment and largest opportunity.
5. What works: two to four specific strengths worth preserving.
6. Priority findings: three to seven issues ordered by severity.
7. Persona red flags: exact failures from two or three relevant perspectives.
8. Systemic patterns: recurring causes rather than isolated symptoms.
9. Recommended actions: ordered, concrete next steps.
10. Evidence limits: what could not be verified and any assumptions.

For a scoped review, include only applicable sections, but keep the same finding format and evidence standards.

For each finding include:

• Severity: P0, P1, P2, or P3;
• Evidence: element, state, behavior, file, or line;
• Impact: the user harm or product cost;
• Recommendation: a specific correction;
• Confidence: include only when evidence is incomplete.

Do not combine the experience and technical totals into a false universal score. Mark inapplicable items n/a, mark unverified dimensions not assessed, and adjust each denominator. Never inflate a score to be polite.

Boundaries

• Remain read-only unless implementation was explicitly requested.
• Do not create report history, hidden state, or project files unless asked.
• Do not require PRODUCT.md, DESIGN.md, subagents, browser injection, or a detector.
• Use context documents when present, but treat the rendered product and code as evidence too.
• Do not report generic advice without tying it to the target.
• Do not report an issue without explaining why it matters.
• Do not call a visual preference an accessibility or correctness defect.