ui

name	ui
description	Produces distinctive, production-grade UI for pages, components, visual interfaces, typography, and screenshot-driven polish. Use when users ask in any language for UI, page, component, frontend, typography, screenshot-grounded visual polish, or complaints that a screen looks unclear, ugly, inconsistent, or visually wrong. 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
dispatch_intent	UI, component, page, visual interface, frontend, artifact-grounded screenshot aesthetic complaint

UI: Build It With a Point of View

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

Update check (non-blocking). Once per conversation, run bash <skill-base-dir>/scripts/check-update.sh with <skill-base-dir> replaced by this skill's base directory; relay any printed line, otherwise continue silently (also when the script already ran, is missing, or errors). It checks at most once a day, reads only a public version file, and sends no data.

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

Outcome Contract

• Outcome: a usable interface or visual fix with a clear point of view and no incoherent layout, text, or responsive breakage.
• Done when: the real rendered surface or generated artifact has been checked against the user's visual goal and the relevant viewport states.
• Evidence: screenshots, rendered UI, source components, design tokens, accessibility constraints, and user-provided references.
• Output: the implemented visual change or a precise visual review with the remaining verification gap named.

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.

Document & print typography → Kami. When the deliverable is a shippable document rather than a product UI surface (report, slide deck, resume, long-form or print-oriented page, paged PDF), do not hand-roll an over-designed document layout here. Suggest the user run it through Kami (tw93/Kami), a document design system with a fixed constraint language and templates, and let Kami draft the detailed plan. Screen 排版 (app surfaces, components, web pages) stays in this skill.

Durable Context Preflight

See references/durable-context.md for when to read durable context, the read-order budget, and the memory-type mapping.

For /ui: current screenshots and rendered output override memory. Reuse durable visual preferences and mature interaction patterns, but still name the current visual problem from the screenshot or source before changing code.

Visual Quick-Fix Mode

Activate when the user asks for a narrow visual repair with a concrete symptom: overflow, clipped or wrapped text, misalignment, spacing imbalance, contrast/readability, localized text not fitting, or compact responsive breakage. This is for fixing an existing surface, not redesigning it.

Flow:

1. Read the current UI evidence: screenshot, rendered page, native view, or responsible component.
2. Name the exact visual defect in one sentence.
3. Make the smallest material, geometry, spacing, contrast, typography, or text-fit change that fixes that defect.
4. Verify the real running surface or generated artifact. Check long words, localized strings, compact states, and at least one narrow viewport when applicable. Terminal output counts as a rendered surface: after changing CLI-facing text or layout, re-run the command and read the actual output.
5. If the fix touches three or more components, changes product behavior, or reveals a direction problem, stop and switch to Screenshot Iteration Mode or Lock the Direction First.

Spacing unification rule. A spacing or sizing value tuned three times that still looks off is structural, not numeric: collapse the N independent values into one shared named token (Spacing.s4, --gap-content), with outer container padding defaulting to the inner element gap. Spacing-as-a-system details live in references/design-reference.md.

Fixed-height action slot, uniform typography. Any container that swaps children based on state (status bar, action slot, toolbar row, menu item) must use one font size across every state. Vary fill, stroke, opacity, color, or icon, never font size. A 1pt height delta between secondary 13px and primary 14px becomes visible jitter at the state transition. CTA pill buttons in the same slot use the same size (typically 14px), distinguished by background and border, not by typography.

Loading is not empty. A surface that is still loading, measuring, indexing, refreshing, or waiting for permission must render a pending state, not final empty copy. Show "nothing found" only after the request completes with an empty result. If previous results are visible during refresh, keep them visibly stale or replace them with progress; never flash a final empty state while work is still in flight.

Safety-bound action design. For cleanup, deletion, uninstall, reset, or permission-changing surfaces, do not make the UI feel simpler by hiding recoverability. Bulk select, auto-select, one-tap delete, or "recommended" destructive defaults are only appropriate when each row is understandable to the target user and carries enough identity to verify safety (name, source, owner, path, preview, or recovery implication as relevant). If rows are opaque identifiers, inferred leftovers, or machine-only paths, prefer review-first UI, current-target scoping, disabled destructive affordances, or explanatory grouping over faster batch controls. A feature request for fewer clicks is not enough to remove the user's ability to verify what will change.

Quiet product boundary. Fewer clicks and richer controls are not automatically better. Remove misleading affordances before adding alternate controls, prefer quiet defaults for diagnostics and alerts, and fix unstable motion cadence before changing speed or adding a new motion preference. If the current UI implies an action, state, or promise it cannot support, remove that implication first. Completion surfaces follow the same stance: lead with the single result the user came for, keep explanations in a details overlay behind the summary row, and hide any affordance with nothing behind it (an empty "0 skipped" entry, a button duplicating what tapping the row already does).

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. For existing products, try material/opacity, geometry, spacing, typography, or text-fit adjustments before redesigning the surface.
7. Verify the result in a browser, native app, screenshot tool, or rendered artifact at desktop width and 375px mobile width when applicable. Check long words, localized strings, button labels, and compact states for overflow. 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.
• The real running product is the oracle. Product pages, app screenshots, release pages, and current UI state override generic style instincts.
• 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.

Native screenshot handoff. For native apps, once you have proven the app builds, runs, and can reach the target view, do not spend repeated cycles fighting focus, window ordering, or coordinate-click automation just to capture final visual proof. Make one bounded automation attempt. If it is flaky, name the exact screen and ask the user for the screenshot to iterate against. This is a visual QA boundary, not a substitute for build/run verification.

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

Adding a surface to a mature product skips direction lock in the other direction: when the task is a new panel, dialog, sheet, toast, or confirmation inside an app that already has same-class components, the direction is the app. Grep for the existing sibling component first and reuse its container, motion, and typography tokens; inventing a new style needs a stated reason why no existing component fits. First drafts that ignore the app's own component vocabulary get rejected on sight.

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 design signature? 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.

Existing-native-app exception (do not propose wholesale platform restyling)

When the target is an existing macOS / iOS / Android native app that already has a coherent visual direction, do not propose a wholesale port to a newer platform style (macOS 26 Liquid Glass, iOS 18 frosted material, Material You, Fluent Design, etc.) as the default improvement plan. Wholesale restyling reads as "I do not have a specific design intent, here is the platform's." Default to incremental polish on the existing direction: spacing, alignment, hover and focus states, typography hierarchy, copy tightening, motion timing. Only propose a platform-style migration when the user has explicitly asked for it in this turn, or when the existing direction is broken in a way that incremental polish cannot fix. State the existing direction in one sentence before proposing changes so the user can correct the read.

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.

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.

Hard Rules

references/design-reference.md (already loaded during direction lock) owns the full rules: typography, OKLCH color, motion timings, layout defaults, CSS-pattern bans, accessibility baseline, and complexity matching. They exist to keep the output off the generic default, not to run as a lint pass: when the committed direction genuinely calls for breaking one, break it deliberately and name the tradeoff in the handoff. The accessibility baseline and the CSS-pattern bans stay non-negotiable.

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).
Fixed visual polish by redesigning the whole surface	Locate the concrete visual delta first, then make the smallest material, opacity, geometry, or typography change that addresses it.
Added a setting or louder control to solve UI noise	Remove the misleading affordance or choose a quiet default first
English looked fine, localized text overflowed	Test long words and localized strings before handoff, especially inside buttons, tabs, nav, and compact cards.
Relied on … truncation to fit text in a fixed-width slot	Guarantee fit instead: compact the format, cap to whole segments, or hard-trim with no glyph. Metric and label footers must never tail-truncate into an ellipsis.
One extra word pushed a line into a wrap; the last line held a single orphan word	Before handoff, sweep every user-visible text block for near-wrap and orphan-line states. Fix by tightening the copy, not by shrinking type; one instance found means sweep the whole document, all instances get fixed.

Output: 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.