Design lens critique covering visual hierarchy, clarity, and anti-slop patterns — produces a findings table, no code edits unless asked. Use when the user wants a design review, says \"what's wrong with this UI\", or needs a second opinion before a handoff or presentation. Invoke when the user asks for critique on their UI, or mentions 'critique' alongside design / UI / frontend work.
Scanned 9/2/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add nuroctane/nur-cli --skill critique --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Critique?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/nuroctane-critique)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: critique
description: "Design lens critique covering visual hierarchy, clarity, and anti-slop patterns — produces a findings table, no code edits unless asked. Use when the user wants a design review, says \"what's wrong with this UI\", or needs a second opinion before a handoff or presentation. Invoke when the user asks for critique on their UI, or mentions 'critique' alongside design / UI / frontend work."
---
<!-- HARNESS MIRROR — do not edit here. Canonical source: skills/ or commands/. After editing source, copy into cli/assets/<harness>/ and repo-root harness mirrors. -->
**Context:** this sub-skill is one lens of the broader `ui-craft` skill. If the `ui-craft` skill is also installed, read its SKILL.md first for Discovery + Anti-Slop + Craft Test, then apply the specific lens below.
Critique the UI at `$ARGUMENTS` through a design lens. Load the `ui-craft` skill.
## Step 0: Visual capture (mandatory)
Code-only review is insufficient. Every audit/critique starts with the surface as the user sees it. Try the following in order; use the first one available:
1. **Playwright MCP** — if `playwright` MCP server is available, use it. Capture full-page screenshots at three viewports: desktop (1280×800), tablet (768×1024), mobile (375×812). Capture dark mode if the app supports it.
2. **Browser DevTools / Chrome MCP** — second choice; same viewport set.
3. **Other browser automation** (`agent-browser`, `cursor-ide-browser`) — third choice.
4. **Ask the user** — last resort. If no automation is available, request screenshots from the user before proceeding. Be specific:
- "Visual review needs screenshots. Please provide:
- Full-page at 1280px (desktop)
- Full-page at 768px (tablet)
- Full-page at 375px (mobile)
- Dark mode of each, if supported."
Do not begin the review until visuals are captured or provided. State this explicitly to the user when no automation succeeds — don't silently fall back to code-only review.
If the user declines to provide screenshots, run a code-only pass and clearly mark the report `[CODE-ONLY REVIEW — visual issues not assessed]` at the top so the limitation is explicit.
**Knob awareness (CRAFT_LEVEL sets the bar for what counts as "needs work"):**
- `CRAFT_LEVEL 3` → flag only anti-slop **Critical** items. Skip Minor polish.
- `CRAFT_LEVEL 5-7` → flag Critical + Major. Mention Minor polish as optional.
- `CRAFT_LEVEL 9+` → flag everything, including Minor polish and missing signature detail.
**Run these lenses in order:**
1. **Anti-Slop Test** (from SKILL.md): flag every item present. Critical first (ALL CAPS, purple gradients, identical card grids, bounce easing, emoji icons, glassmorphism + neon). Then major (colored pills on trends, thick colored borders, uniform radii, gradient text, walls of text). Then minor (straight quotes, missing `tabular-nums`, generic CTAs).
2. **Craft Test** (from SKILL.md): where does the design fall short of "one accent, 3-5 placements; plain secondary text for comparisons; functional color only; every section earns its space"?
3. **Hierarchy**: can the user tell what's primary, secondary, tertiary at a glance? Or does everything shout equally?
4. **Clarity**: is the value prop legible in 5 seconds? Are CTAs specific (not "Learn more")?
5. **Signature detail**: is there one memorable element that makes this feel designed, not assembled? If not, suggest one (motif, layout break, custom marker, distinctive hover).
6. **Inspiration gap** — read `references/inspiration.md`: which observed pattern from the archetypes / signature details applies here, and how does the current state diverge from it?
**Output format** — the Review Format table:
| Before | After | Why |
| --- | --- | --- |
Prioritize by impact, not by file order. End with a one-paragraph summary of the **top 3 changes** that would raise this from "AI-generated" to "designed".
Do NOT edit code. This is a critique.
**Close with a Craft Report** (`references/review.md` → Craft Report) as the final wrapper around the findings table and top-3 summary — Checked names the lenses actually run (Anti-Slop, Craft Test, Hierarchy, Clarity, Signature, Inspiration gap) and at what CRAFT_LEVEL bar, Passed carries whatever held up under those lenses, Changed stays empty (critique doesn't edit), Left alone covers anything flagged but out of scope, Verdict is the one-sentence state. Produce it even when the surface passes clean — that's the validation the user is asking for.
**Next step:** `/polish` — apply the fixes this critique named (rung 1).
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!