一键导入
i-bolder
Use when the user says: "make it bolder", "more distinctive", "too generic". Make designs more distinctive and visually striking.
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt,粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里,让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
菜单
Use when the user says: "make it bolder", "more distinctive", "too generic". Make designs more distinctive and visually striking.
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt,粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里,让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
基于 SOC 职业分类
Use when the user says: "clean code check", "style review", "LLM smell check", "code hygiene", "nitpick this", "style check", "find style sins", "nitpicker review", "anal retentive review", "exhaustive style review", "no-filter style report". Dispatches three parallel stylistic checkers — llm-checker (training-bias patterns), lazy-checker (deferred debt), and nitpicker (style hygiene) — and consolidates findings into a report organized by checker with a Summary section for orchestration consumption.
Use when the user says: "review my changes", "run the reviewers", "code and integration review", "readability review", "maintainability review", "sniff test this", "WTF check", "code smells", "is this code any good", "fresh eyes on this branch", "review this directory", "check this module", "review this skill", "review these instructions". Dispatches three parallel reviewers — code, integration, and a readability pass for code; consistency, instruction quality, and writing quality for instruction files — and consolidates findings into one prioritized report.
Use when the user says: "spec this out", "help me define what I want to build", "interview me about this idea", "design this change", "write a design doc", or needs to define WHAT and HOW to build something. Proportional discovery interview + codebase investigation → design.md.
Use when the user says: "draft a plan", "create work packages", "generate WPs", "review this plan", or "check the plan". Turns a design doc into task files and validates them against a traceability-focused checklist.
Use when the user says: 'close gaps in this design', 'fill gaps in the spec', 'lightweight design review', 'gap-close this doc', 'completeness review', or wants to verify a doc has all required content before implementation.
Use when the user says: "ship it" or "commit push and PR". Commits, pushes, and creates a PR in one step.
| name | i-bolder |
| description | Use when the user says: "make it bolder", "more distinctive", "too generic". Make designs more distinctive and visually striking. |
| user-invocable | true |
Increase visual impact and personality in designs that are too safe, generic, or visually underwhelming, creating more engaging and memorable experiences.
Read ${CLAUDE_CONFIG_DIR:-~/.claude}/skills/i-frontend-design/SKILL.md for design principles, anti-patterns, and the Context Gathering Protocol. Follow the protocol before proceeding — if no design context exists yet, you MUST run /i-teach-impeccable first.
Analyze what makes the design feel too safe or boring:
Identify weakness sources:
Understand the context:
If any of these are not answered by design context (design/context.md, .impeccable.md, or design/direction.md), STOP and call the AskUserQuestion tool to clarify. Use the answer to inform your amplification strategy. If the answer is unclear or deferred, proceed by increasing contrast and weight only — no palette changes.
CRITICAL: "Bolder" doesn't mean chaotic or garish. It means distinctive, memorable, and confident. Think intentional drama, not random chaos.
WARNING - AI SLOP TRAP: When making things "bolder," AI defaults to the same tired tricks. These are the OPPOSITE of bold—they're generic. Review the anti-patterns reference before proceeding. Bold means distinctive, not "more effects."
Create a strategy to increase impact while maintaining coherence:
design/context.md, .impeccable.md) explicitly calls for it, or the user asks.IMPORTANT: Bold design must still be usable. Impact without function is just decoration.
After analyzing the current state, present your proposed changes to the user:
Then STOP and confirm before implementing:
AskUserQuestion:
question: "Here's what I propose. How would you like to proceed?"
header: "Confirm"
options:
- label: "Implement"
description: "Looks good — go ahead and make these changes."
- label: "Refine scope"
description: "I want to adjust what's included before you start."
- label: "Challenge this first"
description: "I'll run /mine-challenge against your proposal before we proceed."
- label: "Stop here"
description: "Don't implement anything. The proposal is in this conversation only."
If "Implement" → proceed to implementation below. If "Refine scope" → ask what to change, update proposal, re-confirm.
If "Challenge this first" → invoke /mine-challenge inline against the proposal, read findings, revise proposal, re-present this gate.
If "Stop here" → end the skill.
Systematically increase impact across these dimensions:
Push hard, but the "not X" anchors are where bold diverges from AI slop:
NEVER:
Ensure amplification maintains usability and coherence:
The test: If you showed this to someone and said "AI made this bolder," would they believe you immediately? If yes, you've failed. Bold means distinctive, not "more AI effects."
Remember: Bold design is confident design. It takes risks, makes statements, and creates memorable experiences. But bold without strategy is just loud. Be intentional, be dramatic, be unforgettable.
After implementation, summarize in conversation: