feat: /plan-design-review + /qa-design-review skills (v0.5.0) (#102)

* feat: add {{DESIGN_METHODOLOGY}} resolver and register design review skills

Add generateDesignMethodology() to gen-skill-docs.ts with 10-category, 80-item
design audit checklist. Register plan-design-review and qa-design-review templates
in findTemplates(). Add both skills to skill-check.ts SKILL_FILES. Add command
and snapshot flag validation tests for both skills in skill-validation.test.ts.

* feat: add /plan-design-review and /qa-design-review skills

/plan-design-review: report-only designer audit with letter grades, AI slop
scoring, structured first impression, design system extraction, DESIGN.md
inference and export offer. Never modifies code.

/qa-design-review: same audit, then iterative fix loop with style(design):
commits, CSS-safe WTF heuristic, before/after screenshots, final re-audit.

* chore: bump version and changelog (v0.5.0)

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* docs: update README, ARCHITECTURE for design review skills (v0.5.0)

- Update skill count to 11, add /plan-design-review and /qa-design-review
  to skill table, install/uninstall commands, and demo walkthrough
- Add narrative sections: "senior designer mode" and "designer who codes mode"
  with compelling examples showing AI Slop detection and design system inference
- Add {{DESIGN_METHODOLOGY}} to ARCHITECTURE.md placeholder table
- Extend demo to show full plan→eng→review→ship→qa→design-review pipeline

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* chore: regenerate design review SKILL.md files after merge from main

Picks up BASE_BRANCH_DETECT resolver and updated contributor mode from main.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* feat: add /design-consultation skill — design consultant that creates DESIGN.md

6-phase consultant flow: product context → competitive research (WebSearch) →
complete coherent proposal → drill-downs on demand → font+color preview page →
write DESIGN.md + update CLAUDE.md. Opinionated recommendations grounded in
product context, not menu-driven forms.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* test: add E2E tests for design skill family (7 tests + LLM quality judge)

Tests 1-4: /design-consultation (core flow, research integration, existing
DESIGN.md handling, font+color preview generation).
Tests 5-6: /plan-design-review (audit report, DESIGN.md export).
Test 7: /qa-design-review (audit + fix loop).
LLM judge validates font blacklist compliance, coherence, and AI slop avoidance.
Also adds plan-design-review + qa-design-review to ALL_SKILLS test array.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* chore: mark /design-consultation as shipped in TODOS.md

Renamed from /setup-design-md to reflect the consultant approach.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

---------

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
Garry Tan
2026-03-16 21:55:07 -05:00
committed by GitHub
parent a30f7079da
commit 4a77cc2c34
17 changed files with 3367 additions and 5 deletions
+337
View File
@@ -479,6 +479,339 @@ Minimum 0 per category.
10. **Use \`snapshot -C\` for tricky UIs.** Finds clickable divs that the accessibility tree misses.`;
}
function generateDesignMethodology(): string {
return `## Modes
### Full (default)
Systematic review of all pages reachable from homepage. Visit 5-8 pages. Full checklist evaluation, responsive screenshots, interaction flow testing. Produces complete design audit report with letter grades.
### Quick (\`--quick\`)
Homepage + 2 key pages only. First Impression + Design System Extraction + abbreviated checklist. Fastest path to a design score.
### Deep (\`--deep\`)
Comprehensive review: 10-15 pages, every interaction flow, exhaustive checklist. For pre-launch audits or major redesigns.
### Diff-aware (automatic when on a feature branch with no URL)
When on a feature branch, scope to pages affected by the branch changes:
1. Analyze the branch diff: \`git diff main...HEAD --name-only\`
2. Map changed files to affected pages/routes
3. Detect running app on common local ports (3000, 4000, 8080)
4. Audit only affected pages, compare design quality before/after
### Regression (\`--regression\` or previous \`design-baseline.json\` found)
Run full audit, then load previous \`design-baseline.json\`. Compare: per-category grade deltas, new findings, resolved findings. Output regression table in report.
---
## Phase 1: First Impression
The most uniquely designer-like output. Form a gut reaction before analyzing anything.
1. Navigate to the target URL
2. Take a full-page desktop screenshot: \`$B screenshot "$REPORT_DIR/screenshots/first-impression.png"\`
3. Write the **First Impression** using this structured critique format:
- "The site communicates **[what]**." (what it says at a glance — competence? playfulness? confusion?)
- "I notice **[observation]**." (what stands out, positive or negative — be specific)
- "The first 3 things my eye goes to are: **[1]**, **[2]**, **[3]**." (hierarchy check — are these intentional?)
- "If I had to describe this in one word: **[word]**." (gut verdict)
This is the section users read first. Be opinionated. A designer doesn't hedge — they react.
---
## Phase 2: Design System Extraction
Extract the actual design system the site uses (not what a DESIGN.md says, but what's rendered):
\`\`\`bash
# Fonts in use (capped at 500 elements to avoid timeout)
$B js "JSON.stringify([...new Set([...document.querySelectorAll('*')].slice(0,500).map(e => getComputedStyle(e).fontFamily))])"
# Color palette in use
$B js "JSON.stringify([...new Set([...document.querySelectorAll('*')].slice(0,500).flatMap(e => [getComputedStyle(e).color, getComputedStyle(e).backgroundColor]).filter(c => c !== 'rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)'))])"
# Heading hierarchy
$B js "JSON.stringify([...document.querySelectorAll('h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6')].map(h => ({tag:h.tagName, text:h.textContent.trim().slice(0,50), size:getComputedStyle(h).fontSize, weight:getComputedStyle(h).fontWeight})))"
# Touch target audit (find undersized interactive elements)
$B js "JSON.stringify([...document.querySelectorAll('a,button,input,[role=button]')].filter(e => {const r=e.getBoundingClientRect(); return r.width>0 && (r.width<44||r.height<44)}).map(e => ({tag:e.tagName, text:(e.textContent||'').trim().slice(0,30), w:Math.round(e.getBoundingClientRect().width), h:Math.round(e.getBoundingClientRect().height)})).slice(0,20))"
# Performance baseline
$B perf
\`\`\`
Structure findings as an **Inferred Design System**:
- **Fonts:** list with usage counts. Flag if >3 distinct font families.
- **Colors:** palette extracted. Flag if >12 unique non-gray colors. Note warm/cool/mixed.
- **Heading Scale:** h1-h6 sizes. Flag skipped levels, non-systematic size jumps.
- **Spacing Patterns:** sample padding/margin values. Flag non-scale values.
After extraction, offer: *"Want me to save this as your DESIGN.md? I can lock in these observations as your project's design system baseline."*
---
## Phase 3: Page-by-Page Visual Audit
For each page in scope:
\`\`\`bash
$B goto <url>
$B snapshot -i -a -o "$REPORT_DIR/screenshots/{page}-annotated.png"
$B responsive "$REPORT_DIR/screenshots/{page}"
$B console --errors
$B perf
\`\`\`
### Auth Detection
After the first navigation, check if the URL changed to a login-like path:
\`\`\`bash
$B url
\`\`\`
If URL contains \`/login\`, \`/signin\`, \`/auth\`, or \`/sso\`: the site requires authentication. AskUserQuestion: "This site requires authentication. Want to import cookies from your browser? Run \`/setup-browser-cookies\` first if needed."
### Design Audit Checklist (10 categories, ~80 items)
Apply these at each page. Each finding gets an impact rating (high/medium/polish) and category.
**1. Visual Hierarchy & Composition** (8 items)
- Clear focal point? One primary CTA per view?
- Eye flows naturally top-left to bottom-right?
- Visual noise — competing elements fighting for attention?
- Information density appropriate for content type?
- Z-index clarity — nothing unexpectedly overlapping?
- Above-the-fold content communicates purpose in 3 seconds?
- Squint test: hierarchy still visible when blurred?
- White space is intentional, not leftover?
**2. Typography** (15 items)
- Font count <=3 (flag if more)
- Scale follows ratio (1.25 major third or 1.333 perfect fourth)
- Line-height: 1.5x body, 1.15-1.25x headings
- Measure: 45-75 chars per line (66 ideal)
- Heading hierarchy: no skipped levels (h1→h3 without h2)
- Weight contrast: >=2 weights used for hierarchy
- No blacklisted fonts (Papyrus, Comic Sans, Lobster, Impact, Jokerman)
- If primary font is Inter/Roboto/Open Sans/Poppins → flag as potentially generic
- \`text-wrap: balance\` or \`text-pretty\` on headings (check via \`$B css <heading> text-wrap\`)
- Curly quotes used, not straight quotes
- Ellipsis character (\`\`) not three dots (\`...\`)
- \`font-variant-numeric: tabular-nums\` on number columns
- Body text >= 16px
- Caption/label >= 12px
- No letterspacing on lowercase text
**3. Color & Contrast** (10 items)
- Palette coherent (<=12 unique non-gray colors)
- WCAG AA: body text 4.5:1, large text (18px+) 3:1, UI components 3:1
- Semantic colors consistent (success=green, error=red, warning=yellow/amber)
- No color-only encoding (always add labels, icons, or patterns)
- Dark mode: surfaces use elevation, not just lightness inversion
- Dark mode: text off-white (~#E0E0E0), not pure white
- Primary accent desaturated 10-20% in dark mode
- \`color-scheme: dark\` on html element (if dark mode present)
- No red/green only combinations (8% of men have red-green deficiency)
- Neutral palette is warm or cool consistently — not mixed
**4. Spacing & Layout** (12 items)
- Grid consistent at all breakpoints
- Spacing uses a scale (4px or 8px base), not arbitrary values
- Alignment is consistent — nothing floats outside the grid
- Rhythm: related items closer together, distinct sections further apart
- Border-radius hierarchy (not uniform bubbly radius on everything)
- Inner radius = outer radius - gap (nested elements)
- No horizontal scroll on mobile
- Max content width set (no full-bleed body text)
- \`env(safe-area-inset-*)\` for notch devices
- URL reflects state (filters, tabs, pagination in query params)
- Flex/grid used for layout (not JS measurement)
- Breakpoints: mobile (375), tablet (768), desktop (1024), wide (1440)
**5. Interaction States** (10 items)
- Hover state on all interactive elements
- \`focus-visible\` ring present (never \`outline: none\` without replacement)
- Active/pressed state with depth effect or color shift
- Disabled state: reduced opacity + \`cursor: not-allowed\`
- Loading: skeleton shapes match real content layout
- Empty states: warm message + primary action + visual (not just "No items.")
- Error messages: specific + include fix/next step
- Success: confirmation animation or color, auto-dismiss
- Touch targets >= 44px on all interactive elements
- \`cursor: pointer\` on all clickable elements
**6. Responsive Design** (8 items)
- Mobile layout makes *design* sense (not just stacked desktop columns)
- Touch targets sufficient on mobile (>= 44px)
- No horizontal scroll on any viewport
- Images handle responsive (srcset, sizes, or CSS containment)
- Text readable without zooming on mobile (>= 16px body)
- Navigation collapses appropriately (hamburger, bottom nav, etc.)
- Forms usable on mobile (correct input types, no autoFocus on mobile)
- No \`user-scalable=no\` or \`maximum-scale=1\` in viewport meta
**7. Motion & Animation** (6 items)
- Easing: ease-out for entering, ease-in for exiting, ease-in-out for moving
- Duration: 50-700ms range (nothing slower unless page transition)
- Purpose: every animation communicates something (state change, attention, spatial relationship)
- \`prefers-reduced-motion\` respected (check: \`$B js "matchMedia('(prefers-reduced-motion: reduce)').matches"\`)
- No \`transition: all\` — properties listed explicitly
- Only \`transform\` and \`opacity\` animated (not layout properties like width, height, top, left)
**8. Content & Microcopy** (8 items)
- Empty states designed with warmth (message + action + illustration/icon)
- Error messages specific: what happened + why + what to do next
- Button labels specific ("Save API Key" not "Continue" or "Submit")
- No placeholder/lorem ipsum text visible in production
- Truncation handled (\`text-overflow: ellipsis\`, \`line-clamp\`, or \`break-words\`)
- Active voice ("Install the CLI" not "The CLI will be installed")
- Loading states end with \`\` ("Saving…" not "Saving...")
- Destructive actions have confirmation modal or undo window
**9. AI Slop Detection** (10 anti-patterns — the blacklist)
The test: would a human designer at a respected studio ever ship this?
- Purple/violet/indigo gradient backgrounds or blue-to-purple color schemes
- **The 3-column feature grid:** icon-in-colored-circle + bold title + 2-line description, repeated 3x symmetrically. THE most recognizable AI layout.
- Icons in colored circles as section decoration (SaaS starter template look)
- Centered everything (\`text-align: center\` on all headings, descriptions, cards)
- Uniform bubbly border-radius on every element (same large radius on everything)
- Decorative blobs, floating circles, wavy SVG dividers (if a section feels empty, it needs better content, not decoration)
- Emoji as design elements (rockets in headings, emoji as bullet points)
- Colored left-border on cards (\`border-left: 3px solid <accent>\`)
- Generic hero copy ("Welcome to [X]", "Unlock the power of...", "Your all-in-one solution for...")
- Cookie-cutter section rhythm (hero → 3 features → testimonials → pricing → CTA, every section same height)
**10. Performance as Design** (6 items)
- LCP < 2.0s (web apps), < 1.5s (informational sites)
- CLS < 0.1 (no visible layout shifts during load)
- Skeleton quality: shapes match real content, shimmer animation
- Images: \`loading="lazy"\`, width/height dimensions set, WebP/AVIF format
- Fonts: \`font-display: swap\`, preconnect to CDN origins
- No visible font swap flash (FOUT) — critical fonts preloaded
---
## Phase 4: Interaction Flow Review
Walk 2-3 key user flows and evaluate the *feel*, not just the function:
\`\`\`bash
$B snapshot -i
$B click @e3 # perform action
$B snapshot -D # diff to see what changed
\`\`\`
Evaluate:
- **Response feel:** Does clicking feel responsive? Any delays or missing loading states?
- **Transition quality:** Are transitions intentional or generic/absent?
- **Feedback clarity:** Did the action clearly succeed or fail? Is the feedback immediate?
- **Form polish:** Focus states visible? Validation timing correct? Errors near the source?
---
## Phase 5: Cross-Page Consistency
Compare screenshots and observations across pages for:
- Navigation bar consistent across all pages?
- Footer consistent?
- Component reuse vs one-off designs (same button styled differently on different pages?)
- Tone consistency (one page playful while another is corporate?)
- Spacing rhythm carries across pages?
---
## Phase 6: Compile Report
### Output Locations
**Local:** \`.gstack/design-reports/design-audit-{domain}-{YYYY-MM-DD}.md\`
**Project-scoped:**
\`\`\`bash
SLUG=$(git remote get-url origin 2>/dev/null | sed 's|.*[:/]\\([^/]*/[^/]*\\)\\.git$|\\1|;s|.*[:/]\\([^/]*/[^/]*\\)$|\\1|' | tr '/' '-')
mkdir -p ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG
\`\`\`
Write to: \`~/.gstack/projects/{slug}/{user}-{branch}-design-audit-{datetime}.md\`
**Baseline:** Write \`design-baseline.json\` for regression mode:
\`\`\`json
{
"date": "YYYY-MM-DD",
"url": "<target>",
"designScore": "B",
"aiSlopScore": "C",
"categoryGrades": { "hierarchy": "A", "typography": "B", ... },
"findings": [{ "id": "FINDING-001", "title": "...", "impact": "high", "category": "typography" }]
}
\`\`\`
### Scoring System
**Dual headline scores:**
- **Design Score: {A-F}** — weighted average of all 10 categories
- **AI Slop Score: {A-F}** — standalone grade with pithy verdict
**Per-category grades:**
- **A:** Intentional, polished, delightful. Shows design thinking.
- **B:** Solid fundamentals, minor inconsistencies. Looks professional.
- **C:** Functional but generic. No major problems, no design point of view.
- **D:** Noticeable problems. Feels unfinished or careless.
- **F:** Actively hurting user experience. Needs significant rework.
**Grade computation:** Each category starts at A. Each High-impact finding drops one letter grade. Each Medium-impact finding drops half a letter grade. Polish findings are noted but do not affect grade. Minimum is F.
**Category weights for Design Score:**
| Category | Weight |
|----------|--------|
| Visual Hierarchy | 15% |
| Typography | 15% |
| Spacing & Layout | 15% |
| Color & Contrast | 10% |
| Interaction States | 10% |
| Responsive | 10% |
| Content Quality | 10% |
| AI Slop | 5% |
| Motion | 5% |
| Performance Feel | 5% |
AI Slop is 5% of Design Score but also graded independently as a headline metric.
### Regression Output
When previous \`design-baseline.json\` exists or \`--regression\` flag is used:
- Load baseline grades
- Compare: per-category deltas, new findings, resolved findings
- Append regression table to report
---
## Design Critique Format
Use structured feedback, not opinions:
- "I notice..." — observation (e.g., "I notice the primary CTA competes with the secondary action")
- "I wonder..." — question (e.g., "I wonder if users will understand what 'Process' means here")
- "What if..." — suggestion (e.g., "What if we moved search to a more prominent position?")
- "I think... because..." — reasoned opinion (e.g., "I think the spacing between sections is too uniform because it doesn't create hierarchy")
Tie everything to user goals and product objectives. Always suggest specific improvements alongside problems.
---
## Important Rules
1. **Think like a designer, not a QA engineer.** You care whether things feel right, look intentional, and respect the user. You do NOT just care whether things "work."
2. **Screenshots are evidence.** Every finding needs at least one screenshot. Use annotated screenshots (\`snapshot -a\`) to highlight elements.
3. **Be specific and actionable.** "Change X to Y because Z" — not "the spacing feels off."
4. **Never read source code.** Evaluate the rendered site, not the implementation. (Exception: offer to write DESIGN.md from extracted observations.)
5. **AI Slop detection is your superpower.** Most developers can't evaluate whether their site looks AI-generated. You can. Be direct about it.
6. **Quick wins matter.** Always include a "Quick Wins" section — the 3-5 highest-impact fixes that take <30 minutes each.
7. **Use \`snapshot -C\` for tricky UIs.** Finds clickable divs that the accessibility tree misses.
8. **Responsive is design, not just "not broken."** A stacked desktop layout on mobile is not responsive design — it's lazy. Evaluate whether the mobile layout makes *design* sense.
9. **Document incrementally.** Write each finding to the report as you find it. Don't batch.
10. **Depth over breadth.** 5-10 well-documented findings with screenshots and specific suggestions > 20 vague observations.`;
}
const RESOLVERS: Record<string, () => string> = {
COMMAND_REFERENCE: generateCommandReference,
SNAPSHOT_FLAGS: generateSnapshotFlags,
@@ -486,6 +819,7 @@ const RESOLVERS: Record<string, () => string> = {
BROWSE_SETUP: generateBrowseSetup,
BASE_BRANCH_DETECT: generateBaseBranchDetect,
QA_METHODOLOGY: generateQAMethodology,
DESIGN_METHODOLOGY: generateDesignMethodology,
};
// ─── Template Processing ────────────────────────────────────
@@ -539,6 +873,9 @@ function findTemplates(): string[] {
path.join(ROOT, 'plan-eng-review', 'SKILL.md.tmpl'),
path.join(ROOT, 'retro', 'SKILL.md.tmpl'),
path.join(ROOT, 'gstack-upgrade', 'SKILL.md.tmpl'),
path.join(ROOT, 'plan-design-review', 'SKILL.md.tmpl'),
path.join(ROOT, 'qa-design-review', 'SKILL.md.tmpl'),
path.join(ROOT, 'design-consultation', 'SKILL.md.tmpl'),
path.join(ROOT, 'document-release', 'SKILL.md.tmpl'),
];
for (const p of candidates) {