Hr Better Interface

---
name: hr-better-interface
description: "Whole-screen or flow UI audit that routes through the hr-better-* skills into one ranked report. Use only when the user asks for an interface review of a screen, flow or repository; branch, PR and diff reviews belong to hr-code-review."
disable-model-invocation: true
license: MIT
metadata:
  upstream: https://github.com/jakubkrehel/skills
  upstream_ref: 592aedc44d7d5b3e29740984252902f3e5402a1c
  upstream_path: skills/better-interface/
  local_patches: "Explicit-only; routes findings to the hr-better-* skills (better-ui is not included); count-first inventory, stock scanner and read-only review; selective upstream verdict/evidence-format clarity; 592aedc4 reviewed, upstream heading flattening, verify-first section order and description rewording not ported (numbered principles and the stock-scan step stay)"
  house_rules_patches: "Portable provenance; hr- skill names"
---

# Interface review

This skill runs a cross-discipline review. It routes the interface to each `hr-better-*` skill, collects their evidence and consolidates one ranked verdict.

Orchestration is all it owns. Accessibility rules belong to `hr-better-accessibility`, structure to `hr-better-layout`, copy to `hr-better-writing`, type to `hr-better-typography`, color to `hr-better-colors`, visual polish and motion to `better-ui`, which is not vendored here. Never duplicate or override their rules here.

Change-scoped review of uncommitted work, branches and pull requests belongs to `hr-code-review`.

## Evidence, not taste

Press hard on the escalation triggers and leave deliberate project choices alone. Those pull the same way. A trigger is a failure whatever the style guide says; a density, radius, or voice you merely disagree with is not a finding.

So the bar for reporting is evidence, not taste. The bar for `Approve` is that you inspected what you claim to have inspected. A short report from a real inspection beats a long one padded to look thorough.

## Core principles

### 1. Resolve the scope first

Infer the screen, flow, feature, or repository scope from the request and current workspace. State the resolved scope in the output.

Cover all of it across every domain skill listed under **Use domain skills as the sources of truth**, including the empty, loading, error and narrow-width states where they exist. Report at most 15 findings; confirmed escalation triggers are reported in full and do not count toward that cap.

When the scope is too large to inspect credibly, narrow it to one complete flow: the one the request centers on, or failing that the entry path every user must pass through. State the boundary and what it excluded. Never imply uninspected surfaces were reviewed.

### 2. Send a change to `hr-code-review`

A request naming a branch, pull request, commit range, or uncommitted changes is a change review, not a screen review. Say so and hand it to `hr-code-review`. Never resolve a change scope here.

### 3. Recon before judgment

Identify the framework, styling system, component library, design tokens, supported viewports and any preview or test command. Write every fix in the project's own idiom, so no finding arrives as a request to adopt a different stack. That governs the form of the fix, not whether the code is good enough.

Then read what the project has written about its own interface: `CONTRIBUTING.md`, `CODING_STANDARDS.md`, `AGENTS.md`, `CLAUDE.md`, a design-system doc, Storybook docs, interface ADRs. Name which you found, or that there are none.

Read them to find where a finding belongs, not for permission to drop it. A documented convention is no evidence the convention is good, and "it's in the style guide" does not retire a finding. What they change is **where** you report. When a guideline or shared token is the cause, report it once against that source, with the components as its locations.

Then take inventory with counts before judging consistency. List the tokens, theme entries, written rules and checks the project already has for color, type and spacing. Count the raw values outside them per file: color literals, arbitrary sizes such as `text-[13px]`, one-off spacing. Put the counts in the coverage section. A written rule with raw values still spreading and no check behind it is one finding against the rule, and its fix is the check. A proposed spec (a `DESIGN.md`, a new token file) that restates tokens or rules the project already has would be a third copy. Propose the check against the existing source instead.

### 4. Use domain skills as the sources of truth

Before reviewing, confirm that every owning skill below is available. Load and apply every available owner, and complete each domain review before consolidation.

Review in this order so foundational failures are not hidden by polish:

1. `hr-better-accessibility`
2. `hr-better-layout`
3. `hr-better-writing`
4. `hr-better-typography`
5. `hr-better-colors`
6. `better-ui` (not vendored: always `Not reviewed`)

From a domain skill loaded here, take its principles, its references and its verification checks. Its severity ladder and its format are for standalone use; the consolidated format, shared severity and finding cap in this file replace them.

If an owning skill is unavailable, mark that domain `Not reviewed`, name it and continue with the rest. Do not recreate its rules from memory, substitute a neighbour, or claim holistic coverage.

When two skills appear to cover one issue, assign it to the owner of the underlying rule and note secondary effects in the **Why** cell. Report it once.

### 5. Require evidence

Every finding cites `path/to/file:line` and shows the current implementation. Do not report a code-level finding from visual appearance alone or a visual finding from source code alone when runtime behavior determines the result.

### 6. Rank by user impact

Use one shared severity scale:

- `HIGH`: blocks a task, misleads the user, hides content or controls, causes data-loss risk, or creates a repeated systemic failure.
- `MEDIUM`: meaningfully harms comprehension, efficiency, adaptability, or consistency.
- `LOW`: isolated polish with limited task impact.

Within a severity, rank by how many places the finding reaches and how much one fix buys. A token or shared-component fix outranks the same symptom in one leaf.

**Escalation triggers.** Once the owning skill confirms one of these, it is `HIGH` on sight, never averaged down because the surface is minor:

- An interactive control with no accessible name.
- A keyboard-reachable control with no visible focus indicator.
- A control or path reachable by pointer but not by keyboard.
- Motion or auto-playing content that ignores `prefers-reduced-motion`.
- Content or a control clipped, overlapped, or unreachable at 320px width or 200% zoom.
- Body or control text whose rendered contrast pair fails its required ratio.
- State or meaning carried by color alone.
- A destructive action with no confirmation, undo, or distinct treatment.
- Truncated content with no way to reach the full value.
- Content or a control reachable only past a scroll edge or behind a disclosure that has no visible cue.
- An error that names no way to recover from it.
- A semantic color used against its meaning, such as the danger hue on a non-destructive action.
- A state change carried by motion alone, with no color, icon, or label left behind when the animation does not run.

Triggers rank above every other finding. A confirmed trigger is always reported in full, even past the cap: the cap limits the other findings, never a blocker.

These set severity, not new rules. The owning skill decides whether the symptom is present; this list decides what it costs.

### 7. Prefer the cheaper fix

Severity says how bad a finding is; this says which fix to propose. When more than one would work, take the earliest that does:

1. **Delete.** A separator that space would carry, an animation on a high-frequency interaction, an ARIA attribute a native element makes redundant, a ramp nothing imports.
2. **Use the platform.** The native element, the native control, the browser's own focus ring, in place of a custom rebuild.
3. **Reuse what the project has.** An existing token, spacing step, or motion curve, before any new value.
4. **Correct the value.** The wrong easing, radius, gap, or contrast pair, using the exact value the owning skill gives.
5. **Add.** A new token, a wrapper, a media query, an ARIA attribute the platform cannot supply.

A fix written at step 5 where step 1 was available is its own finding. Report the deletion instead.

### 8. Consolidate systemic findings

One root cause is one finding. List every confirmed location in the same row rather than one row per occurrence. Never pad to reach the cap; a short review or no findings is a valid result.

### 9. Verify what can be verified

Run the safe, relevant checks the project offers. Inspect the rendered interface when runtime behavior or visual judgment matters, and report the exact command or interaction and its result. A check you cannot run is **Not verified**, never a finding.

When `hr-stock-ui-audit` is available, run its scanner over the scope's frontend source and report the command, file count and result. A match is a candidate: confirm it in context, then report it through the domain skill that owns it (colors, typography or layout) or drop it as an intentional choice.

### 10. Review without mutating by default

Treat a review request as read-only. Do not edit source unless the user also asks you to implement the findings. When they do, keep the consolidated report as the change scope and re-run the relevant verification afterward.

## Before you finish

| Mistake                                                  | Fix                                                            |
| -------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Six disconnected domain reports                          | One ranked findings table                                      |
| Visual claim inferred only from source                   | Inspect the rendered state, or mark it not verified            |
| A coverage row naming no file, component, state or check | Inspect that domain, or mark it `Not reviewed` with the reason |
| Missing owning skill treated as covered                  | Mark the domain `Not reviewed` and name it in the verdict      |
| The same symptom reported once per component             | Report its shared cause once, with every confirmed location    |
| A proposed fix adds a wrapper, token or ARIA attribute   | Check deletion and the native element first                    |

## Review output format

The format lives in [review-format.md](review-format.md): scope and coverage, the findings table, verification and the verdict. A review is not finished until its findings are reported there.