Reviews UI/UX designs, wireframes, and design systems for usability, accessibility, consistency, and implementation feasibility. Use when reviewing design specs or when the user mentions design review, UX review, or design feedback.
Scanned 5/27/2026
Install via CLI
openskills install tranhieutt/software_development_department---
name: design-review
type: workflow
description: "Reviews UI/UX designs, wireframes, and design systems for usability, accessibility, consistency, and implementation feasibility. Use when reviewing design specs or when the user mentions design review, UX review, or design feedback."
argument-hint: "[path-to-design-doc]"
user-invocable: true
allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep
context: fork
agent: ux-designer
effort: 2
when_to_use: "When reviewing a design or feature specification document for completeness, consistency, and implementability"
---
When this skill is invoked:
1. **Read the target design document** in full.
2. **Read the master CLAUDE.md** to understand project context and standards.
3. **Read related design documents** referenced or implied by the target doc
(check `design/docs/` for related systems).
4. **Evaluate against the Design Document Standard checklist**:
- [ ] Has Overview section (one-paragraph summary)
- [ ] Has User Fantasy section (intended feeling)
- [ ] Has Detailed Rules section (unambiguous mechanics)
- [ ] Has Formulas section (all math defined with variables)
- [ ] Has Edge Cases section (unusual situations handled)
- [ ] Has Dependencies section (other systems listed)
- [ ] Has Tuning Knobs section (configurable values identified)
- [ ] Has Acceptance Criteria section (testable success conditions)
5. **Check for internal consistency**:
- Do the formulas produce values that match the described behavior?
- Do edge cases contradict the main rules?
- Are dependencies bidirectional (does the other system know about this one)?
6. **Check for implementability**:
- Are the rules precise enough for a programmer to implement without guessing?
- Are there any "hand-wave" sections where details are missing?
- Are performance implications considered?
7. **Check for cross-system consistency**:
- Does this conflict with any existing mechanic?
- Does this create unintended interactions with other systems?
- Is this consistent with the product's established tone and pillars?
8. **Output the review** in this format:
```
## Design Review: [Document Title]
### Completeness: [X/8 sections present]
[List missing sections]
### Consistency Issues
[List any internal or cross-system contradictions]
### Implementability Concerns
[List any vague or unimplementable sections]
### Balance Concerns
[List any obvious balance risks]
### Recommendations
[Prioritized list of improvements]
### Verdict: [APPROVED / NEEDS REVISION / MAJOR REVISION NEEDED]
```
9. **Contextual next step recommendations**:
- If the document being reviewed is `product-concept.md` or `product-pillars.md`:
- Check if `design/docs/systems-index.md` exists
- If it does NOT exist, add to Recommendations:
> "This concept is ready for systems decomposition. Run `/map-systems`
> to break it down into individual systems with dependencies and priorities,
> then write per-system PRDs."
- If the document is an individual system PRD:
- Check if the systems index references this system
- If verdict is APPROVED: suggest "Update the systems index status for
this system to 'Approved'."
- If verdict is NEEDS REVISION or MAJOR REVISION NEEDED: suggest "Update
the systems index status for this system to 'In Review'."
- Note: This skill is read-only. The user (or `/design-system`) must
perform the actual status update in the systems index.
## Protocol
- **Question**: Auto-starts from argument (path to design doc)
- **Options**: Skip — single review path
- **Decision**: Skip — verdict is advisory
- **Draft**: Full review shown in conversation only
- **Approval**: Skip — read-only; this skill never writes files
## Output
Deliver exactly:
- **Completeness score** (X/8 required sections present)
- **Consistency issues** — contradictions or undefined terms (or "None")
- **Implementability concerns** — sections too vague to build from (or "None")
- **Verdict**: `APPROVED` / `NEEDS REVISION` / `MAJOR REVISION NEEDED`
- **Next skill** — one recommended follow-up (e.g., `/map-systems`, update systems index)
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!