Use when executing, coordinating, planning, or reviewing design lab agent workflows, cognitive loops, and architecture standards.
Scanned 9/29/2026
npx -y skills add Harmitx7/tribunal-kit --skill design-lab --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Design Lab?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/harmitx7-design-lab)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.
---
name: design-lab
description: "Use when executing, coordinating, planning, or reviewing design lab agent workflows, cognitive loops, and architecture standards."
version: 6.0.0
last-updated: 2026-09-29
skills:
- brainstorming
- shape
- frontend-design
tools: Read, Grep, Glob, Bash, Edit, Write
scripts-binding:
- .agent/scripts/auto_preview.js
- .agent/scripts/verify_all.js
- .agent/scripts/lint_runner.js
---
# Design Lab — Interactive Design Exploration & Variants
## Mandatory Pre-Flight Context Inspection
Before reading, generating, or refactoring code in the `design-lab` domain, inspect these 5 critical parameters:
1. **System Boundaries & Dependencies**: Verify that all required dependencies exist in target package manifests and environment paths.
2. **Runtime Context & Platform Invariants**: Confirm target platform constraints (Node.js, Browser, Mobile OS, Edge runtime) before applying APIs.
3. **Execution Guardrails**: Identify potential side-effects, state mutations, and unhandled asynchronous exceptions.
4. **Validation & Type Contracts**: Validate input data schemas and strict type constraints across all module interfaces.
5. **Observability & Proof of Execution**: Ensure execution produces tangible verification signals (terminal output, tests, metrics).
## Activation Boundaries
- **Activate when:** Use when executing, coordinating, planning, or reviewing design lab agent workflows, cognitive loops, and architecture standards.
- **DO NOT activate when:** The task falls outside the `design-lab` domain or is managed by a different dedicated specialist agent.
## 🔁 Multi-Pass Execution Protocol
| Pass | Phase | Core Action | Adaptive Depth |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Pass 1** | **Understand** | Deconstruct the user's explicit objective, implicit requirements, and platform constraints. | Fast / Standard / Deep |
| **Pass 2** | **Plan** | Decompose task into smallest logical steps; map dependencies, affected files, and tool calls. | Standard / Deep |
| **Pass 3** | **Execute** | Implement solution with production-grade craft, zero placeholders, and strict typing. | All Modes |
| **Pass 4** | **Verify** | Run linters, unit tests, or compiler checks to validate structural correctness. | All Modes |
| **Pass 5** | **Attack & Falsify** | Perform adversarial search for edge-case failures, counterexamples, race conditions, and traps. | Standard / Deep |
| **Pass 6** | **Harden** | Eliminate discovered friction, optimize performance, and harden error boundaries. | Standard / Deep |
| **Pass 7** | **Quality Gate** | Enforce Verification-Before-Completion (VBC) with concrete terminal proof before finalizing. | All Modes |
---
## 🛠️ Technical Architecture & Reference Recipes
---
## 3 Design Lab Phases
### Phase 1: Context & Constraint Gathering
Ask 2 targeted questions to map out design direction:
1. What aesthetic tone fits best? (e.g. Minimalist Editorial vs High-Impact Brutalist vs Clean Corporate SaaS)
2. What component variants would you like to explore? (e.g. Card layout options A vs B)
### Phase 2: Generating Distinct Structural Variants
Generate 2 distinct visual variants (e.g. Option A: Centered Minimalist vs Option B: Asymmetrical Card Grid).
### Phase 3: Interactive Refinement
Synthesize feedback on preferred elements and build the polished final component.
## 🚨 Edge-Case & Failure Mode Matrix
| Scenario | Risk | Production Mitigation |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Empty or Null Inputs** | Unhandled exception or unexpected rendering collapse | Enforce fallback guards, optional chaining, and explicit empty state handlers |
| **Network Timeout / Latency** | Hanging operations or duplicate side-effects | Implement bounded abort controllers, exponential backoff, and idempotency keys |
| **Concurrency / Race Conditions** | Stale state overwrite or inconsistent data mutations | Use atomic transactions, mutex locking, or cancel-on-resubmit controls |
| **Invalid Schema / Malformed Payload** | Downstream runtime errors or security injection | Validate boundary payloads with Zod/Pydantic schemas prior to execution |
| **Resource / Memory Saturation** | OOM errors, frame drops, or memory leaks | Clean up listeners, cancel active timers, and enforce pagination/virtualization |
## 🤖 LLM-Specific Traps Table
| Anti-Pattern | What AI Commonly Does Wrong | What Is Actually Correct |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Hallucinated Tool Capabilities** | Assuming an external library or CLI command exists without verification | Run a verification check or verify package.json before referencing tools |
| **Premature Completion Claim** | Declaring a task finished because code was generated without verification | Execute tests, linters, or terminal commands to provide concrete proof |
| **Context Bloat Dumping** | Pasting entire multi-thousand-line files into prompt context | Extract targeted excerpts, symbols, and signatures to preserve tokens |
## 🏛️ Tribunal Verification & Guardrails
**Active Reviewers:** `orchestrator` · `agent-organizer` · `logic-reviewer`
**Slash Command:** `/review` or `/tribunal-full`
### 🔬 Evidence Standard (Tri-State Verification)
Every finding, audit statement, or completion claim must classify its factual certainty:
- **`[OBSERVED]`**: Directly confirmed in the codebase or verified via executed terminal command.
- **`[INFERRED]`**: Logically deduced from code patterns, architectural data flow, or schema relations.
- **`[UNVERIFIED]`**: Speculative hypothesis or runtime possibility requiring active testing or measurement.
### ✅ Pre-Flight Self-Audit Checklist
```
✅ Did I deconstruct the root objective before proposing architecture?
✅ Did I identify dependencies, bottlenecks, and parallelizable sub-tasks?
✅ Did I avoid over-engineering and select the simplest effective pattern?
✅ Did I verify assumptions with concrete file reads instead of speculation?
✅ Did I establish measurable verification criteria before completion?
```
### 🛑 Verification-Before-Completion (VBC) Protocol
**CRITICAL:** You must follow a strict "evidence-based closeout" state machine.
- ❌ **Forbidden:** Declaring a task complete because the output "looks correct."
- ✅ **Required:** You are explicitly forbidden from finalizing any task without providing **concrete evidence** (terminal output, passing test suites, compiler success, or equivalent operational proof) that your output works as intended.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!