gstack/scripts/resolvers/design.ts

import type { TemplateContext } from './types';
import { AI_SLOP_BLACKLIST, OPENAI_HARD_REJECTIONS, OPENAI_LITMUS_CHECKS } from './constants';

export function generateDesignReviewLite(ctx: TemplateContext): string {
  const litmusList = OPENAI_LITMUS_CHECKS.map((item, i) => `${i + 1}. ${item}`).join(' ');
  const rejectionList = OPENAI_HARD_REJECTIONS.map((item, i) => `${i + 1}. ${item}`).join(' ');
  // Codex block only for Claude host
  const codexBlock = ctx.host === 'codex' ? '' : `

7. **Codex design voice** (optional, automatic if available):

\`\`\`bash
which codex 2>/dev/null && echo "CODEX_AVAILABLE" || echo "CODEX_NOT_AVAILABLE"
\`\`\`

If Codex is available, run a lightweight design check on the diff:

\`\`\`bash
TMPERR_DRL=$(mktemp /tmp/codex-drl-XXXXXXXX)
codex exec "Review the git diff on this branch. Run 7 litmus checks (YES/NO each): ${litmusList} Flag any hard rejections: ${rejectionList} 5 most important design findings only. Reference file:line." -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="high"' --enable web_search_cached 2>"$TMPERR_DRL"
\`\`\`

Use a 5-minute timeout (\`timeout: 300000\`). After the command completes, read stderr:
\`\`\`bash
cat "$TMPERR_DRL" && rm -f "$TMPERR_DRL"
\`\`\`

**Error handling:** All errors are non-blocking. On auth failure, timeout, or empty response — skip with a brief note and continue.

Present Codex output under a \`CODEX (design):\` header, merged with the checklist findings above.`;

  return `## Design Review (conditional, diff-scoped)

Check if the diff touches frontend files using \`gstack-diff-scope\`:

\`\`\`bash
source <(${ctx.paths.binDir}/gstack-diff-scope <base> 2>/dev/null)
\`\`\`

**If \`SCOPE_FRONTEND=false\`:** Skip design review silently. No output.

**If \`SCOPE_FRONTEND=true\`:**

1. **Check for DESIGN.md.** If \`DESIGN.md\` or \`design-system.md\` exists in the repo root, read it. All design findings are calibrated against it — patterns blessed in DESIGN.md are not flagged. If not found, use universal design principles.

2. **Read \`.claude/skills/review/design-checklist.md\`.** If the file cannot be read, skip design review with a note: "Design checklist not found — skipping design review."

3. **Read each changed frontend file** (full file, not just diff hunks). Frontend files are identified by the patterns listed in the checklist.

4. **Apply the design checklist** against the changed files. For each item:
   - **[HIGH] mechanical CSS fix** (\`outline: none\`, \`!important\`, \`font-size < 16px\`): classify as AUTO-FIX
   - **[HIGH/MEDIUM] design judgment needed**: classify as ASK
   - **[LOW] intent-based detection**: present as "Possible — verify visually or run /design-review"

5. **Include findings** in the review output under a "Design Review" header, following the output format in the checklist. Design findings merge with code review findings into the same Fix-First flow.

6. **Log the result** for the Review Readiness Dashboard:

\`\`\`bash
${ctx.paths.binDir}/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"design-review-lite","timestamp":"TIMESTAMP","status":"STATUS","findings":N,"auto_fixed":M,"commit":"COMMIT"}'
\`\`\`

Substitute: TIMESTAMP = ISO 8601 datetime, STATUS = "clean" if 0 findings or "issues_found", N = total findings, M = auto-fixed count, COMMIT = output of \`git rev-parse --short HEAD\`.${codexBlock}`;
}

// NOTE: design-checklist.md is a subset of this methodology for code-level detection.
// When adding items here, also update review/design-checklist.md, and vice versa.
export function generateDesignMethodology(_ctx: TemplateContext): 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?

${AI_SLOP_BLACKLIST.map(item => `- ${item}`).join('\n')}

**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 layout, 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
eval "$(~/.claude/skills/gstack/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null)" && mkdir -p ~/.gstack/projects/$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.
11. **Show screenshots to the user.** After every \`$B screenshot\`, \`$B snapshot -a -o\`, or \`$B responsive\` command, use the Read tool on the output file(s) so the user can see them inline. For \`responsive\` (3 files), Read all three. This is critical — without it, screenshots are invisible to the user.`;
}

export function generateDesignSketch(_ctx: TemplateContext): string {
  return `## Visual Sketch (UI ideas only)

If the chosen approach involves user-facing UI (screens, pages, forms, dashboards,
or interactive elements), generate a rough wireframe to help the user visualize it.
If the idea is backend-only, infrastructure, or has no UI component — skip this
section silently.

**Step 1: Gather design context**

1. Check if \`DESIGN.md\` exists in the repo root. If it does, read it for design
   system constraints (colors, typography, spacing, component patterns). Use these
   constraints in the wireframe.
2. Apply core design principles:
   - **Information hierarchy** — what does the user see first, second, third?
   - **Interaction states** — loading, empty, error, success, partial
   - **Edge case paranoia** — what if the name is 47 chars? Zero results? Network fails?
   - **Subtraction default** — "as little design as possible" (Rams). Every element earns its pixels.
   - **Design for trust** — every interface element builds or erodes user trust.

**Step 2: Generate wireframe HTML**

Generate a single-page HTML file with these constraints:
- **Intentionally rough aesthetic** — use system fonts, thin gray borders, no color,
  hand-drawn-style elements. This is a sketch, not a polished mockup.
- Self-contained — no external dependencies, no CDN links, inline CSS only
- Show the core interaction flow (1-3 screens/states max)
- Include realistic placeholder content (not "Lorem ipsum" — use content that
  matches the actual use case)
- Add HTML comments explaining design decisions

Write to a temp file:
\`\`\`bash
SKETCH_FILE="/tmp/gstack-sketch-$(date +%s).html"
\`\`\`

**Step 3: Render and capture**

\`\`\`bash
$B goto "file://$SKETCH_FILE"
$B screenshot /tmp/gstack-sketch.png
\`\`\`

If \`$B\` is not available (browse binary not set up), skip the render step. Tell the
user: "Visual sketch requires the browse binary. Run the setup script to enable it."

**Step 4: Present and iterate**

Show the screenshot to the user. Ask: "Does this feel right? Want to iterate on the layout?"

If they want changes, regenerate the HTML with their feedback and re-render.
If they approve or say "good enough," proceed.

**Step 5: Include in design doc**

Reference the wireframe screenshot in the design doc's "Recommended Approach" section.
The screenshot file at \`/tmp/gstack-sketch.png\` can be referenced by downstream skills
(\`/plan-design-review\`, \`/design-review\`) to see what was originally envisioned.

**Step 6: Outside design voices** (optional)

After the wireframe is approved, offer outside design perspectives:

\`\`\`bash
which codex 2>/dev/null && echo "CODEX_AVAILABLE" || echo "CODEX_NOT_AVAILABLE"
\`\`\`

If Codex is available, use AskUserQuestion:
> "Want outside design perspectives on the chosen approach? Codex proposes a visual thesis, content plan, and interaction ideas. A Claude subagent proposes an alternative aesthetic direction."
>
> A) Yes — get outside design voices
> B) No — proceed without

If user chooses A, launch both voices simultaneously:

1. **Codex** (via Bash, \`model_reasoning_effort="medium"\`):
\`\`\`bash
TMPERR_SKETCH=$(mktemp /tmp/codex-sketch-XXXXXXXX)
codex exec "For this product approach, provide: a visual thesis (one sentence — mood, material, energy), a content plan (hero → support → detail → CTA), and 2 interaction ideas that change page feel. Apply beautiful defaults: composition-first, brand-first, cardless, poster not document. Be opinionated." -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="medium"' --enable web_search_cached 2>"$TMPERR_SKETCH"
\`\`\`
Use a 5-minute timeout (\`timeout: 300000\`). After completion: \`cat "$TMPERR_SKETCH" && rm -f "$TMPERR_SKETCH"\`

2. **Claude subagent** (via Agent tool):
"For this product approach, what design direction would you recommend? What aesthetic, typography, and interaction patterns fit? What would make this approach feel inevitable to the user? Be specific — font names, hex colors, spacing values."

Present Codex output under \`CODEX SAYS (design sketch):\` and subagent output under \`CLAUDE SUBAGENT (design direction):\`.
Error handling: all non-blocking. On failure, skip and continue.`;
}

export function generateDesignOutsideVoices(ctx: TemplateContext): string {
  // Codex host: strip entirely — Codex should never invoke itself
  if (ctx.host === 'codex') return '';

  const rejectionList = OPENAI_HARD_REJECTIONS.map((item, i) => `${i + 1}. ${item}`).join('\n');
  const litmusList = OPENAI_LITMUS_CHECKS.map((item, i) => `${i + 1}. ${item}`).join('\n');

  // Skill-specific configuration
  const isPlanDesignReview = ctx.skillName === 'plan-design-review';
  const isDesignReview = ctx.skillName === 'design-review';
  const isDesignConsultation = ctx.skillName === 'design-consultation';

  // Determine opt-in behavior and reasoning effort
  const isAutomatic = isDesignReview; // design-review runs automatically
  const reasoningEffort = isDesignConsultation ? 'medium' : 'high'; // creative vs analytical

  // Build skill-specific Codex prompt
  let codexPrompt: string;
  let subagentPrompt: string;

  if (isPlanDesignReview) {
    codexPrompt = `Read the plan file at [plan-file-path]. Evaluate this plan's UI/UX design against these criteria.

HARD REJECTION — flag if ANY apply:
${rejectionList}

LITMUS CHECKS — answer YES or NO for each:
${litmusList}

HARD RULES — first classify as MARKETING/LANDING PAGE vs APP UI vs HYBRID, then flag violations of the matching rule set:
- MARKETING: First viewport as one composition, brand-first hierarchy, full-bleed hero, 2-3 intentional motions, composition-first layout
- APP UI: Calm surface hierarchy, dense but readable, utility language, minimal chrome
- UNIVERSAL: CSS variables for colors, no default font stacks, one job per section, cards earn existence

For each finding: what's wrong, what will happen if it ships unresolved, and the specific fix. Be opinionated. No hedging.`;

    subagentPrompt = `Read the plan file at [plan-file-path]. You are an independent senior product designer reviewing this plan. You have NOT seen any prior review. Evaluate:

1. Information hierarchy: what does the user see first, second, third? Is it right?
2. Missing states: loading, empty, error, success, partial — which are unspecified?
3. User journey: what's the emotional arc? Where does it break?
4. Specificity: does the plan describe SPECIFIC UI ("48px Söhne Bold header, #1a1a1a on white") or generic patterns ("clean modern card-based layout")?
5. What design decisions will haunt the implementer if left ambiguous?

For each finding: what's wrong, severity (critical/high/medium), and the fix.`;
  } else if (isDesignReview) {
    codexPrompt = `Review the frontend source code in this repo. Evaluate against these design hard rules:
- Spacing: systematic (design tokens / CSS variables) or magic numbers?
- Typography: expressive purposeful fonts or default stacks?
- Color: CSS variables with defined system, or hardcoded hex scattered?
- Responsive: breakpoints defined? calc(100svh - header) for heroes? Mobile tested?
- A11y: ARIA landmarks, alt text, contrast ratios, 44px touch targets?
- Motion: 2-3 intentional animations, or zero / ornamental only?
- Cards: used only when card IS the interaction? No decorative card grids?

First classify as MARKETING/LANDING PAGE vs APP UI vs HYBRID, then apply matching rules.

LITMUS CHECKS — answer YES/NO:
${litmusList}

HARD REJECTION — flag if ANY apply:
${rejectionList}

Be specific. Reference file:line for every finding.`;

    subagentPrompt = `Review the frontend source code in this repo. You are an independent senior product designer doing a source-code design audit. Focus on CONSISTENCY PATTERNS across files rather than individual violations:
- Are spacing values systematic across the codebase?
- Is there ONE color system or scattered approaches?
- Do responsive breakpoints follow a consistent set?
- Is the accessibility approach consistent or spotty?

For each finding: what's wrong, severity (critical/high/medium), and the file:line.`;
  } else if (isDesignConsultation) {
    codexPrompt = `Given this product context, propose a complete design direction:
- Visual thesis: one sentence describing mood, material, and energy
- Typography: specific font names (not defaults — no Inter/Roboto/Arial/system) + hex colors
- Color system: CSS variables for background, surface, primary text, muted text, accent
- Layout: composition-first, not component-first. First viewport as poster, not document
- Differentiation: 2 deliberate departures from category norms
- Anti-slop: no purple gradients, no 3-column icon grids, no centered everything, no decorative blobs

Be opinionated. Be specific. Do not hedge. This is YOUR design direction — own it.`;

    subagentPrompt = `Given this product context, propose a design direction that would SURPRISE. What would the cool indie studio do that the enterprise UI team wouldn't?
- Propose an aesthetic direction, typography stack (specific font names), color palette (hex values)
- 2 deliberate departures from category norms
- What emotional reaction should the user have in the first 3 seconds?

Be bold. Be specific. No hedging.`;
  } else {
    // Unknown skill — return empty
    return '';
  }

  // Build the opt-in section
  const optInSection = isAutomatic ? `
**Automatic:** Outside voices run automatically when Codex is available. No opt-in needed.` : `
Use AskUserQuestion:
> "Want outside design voices${isPlanDesignReview ? ' before the detailed review' : ''}? Codex evaluates against OpenAI's design hard rules + litmus checks; Claude subagent does an independent ${isDesignConsultation ? 'design direction proposal' : 'completeness review'}."
>
> A) Yes — run outside design voices
> B) No — proceed without

If user chooses B, skip this step and continue.`;

  // Build the synthesis section
  const synthesisSection = isPlanDesignReview ? `
**Synthesis — Litmus scorecard:**

\`\`\`
DESIGN OUTSIDE VOICES — LITMUS SCORECARD:
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
  Check                                    Claude  Codex  Consensus
  ─────────────────────────────────────── ─────── ─────── ─────────
  1. Brand unmistakable in first screen?   —       —      —
  2. One strong visual anchor?             —       —      —
  3. Scannable by headlines only?          —       —      —
  4. Each section has one job?             —       —      —
  5. Cards actually necessary?             —       —      —
  6. Motion improves hierarchy?            —       —      —
  7. Premium without decorative shadows?   —       —      —
  ─────────────────────────────────────── ─────── ─────── ─────────
  Hard rejections triggered:               —       —      —
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
\`\`\`

Fill in each cell from the Codex and subagent outputs. CONFIRMED = both agree. DISAGREE = models differ. NOT SPEC'D = not enough info to evaluate.

**Pass integration (respects existing 7-pass contract):**
- Hard rejections → raised as the FIRST items in Pass 1, tagged \`[HARD REJECTION]\`
- Litmus DISAGREE items → raised in the relevant pass with both perspectives
- Litmus CONFIRMED failures → pre-loaded as known issues in the relevant pass
- Passes can skip discovery and go straight to fixing for pre-identified issues` :
    isDesignConsultation ? `
**Synthesis:** Claude main references both Codex and subagent proposals in the Phase 3 proposal. Present:
- Areas of agreement between all three voices (Claude main + Codex + subagent)
- Genuine divergences as creative alternatives for the user to choose from
- "Codex and I agree on X. Codex suggested Y where I'm proposing Z — here's why..."` : `
**Synthesis — Litmus scorecard:**

Use the same scorecard format as /plan-design-review (shown above). Fill in from both outputs.
Merge findings into the triage with \`[codex]\` / \`[subagent]\` / \`[cross-model]\` tags.`;

  const escapedCodexPrompt = codexPrompt.replace(/`/g, '\\`').replace(/\$/g, '\\$');

  return `## Design Outside Voices (parallel)
${optInSection}

**Check Codex availability:**
\`\`\`bash
which codex 2>/dev/null && echo "CODEX_AVAILABLE" || echo "CODEX_NOT_AVAILABLE"
\`\`\`

**If Codex is available**, launch both voices simultaneously:

1. **Codex design voice** (via Bash):
\`\`\`bash
TMPERR_DESIGN=$(mktemp /tmp/codex-design-XXXXXXXX)
codex exec "${escapedCodexPrompt}" -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="${reasoningEffort}"' --enable web_search_cached 2>"$TMPERR_DESIGN"
\`\`\`
Use a 5-minute timeout (\`timeout: 300000\`). After the command completes, read stderr:
\`\`\`bash
cat "$TMPERR_DESIGN" && rm -f "$TMPERR_DESIGN"
\`\`\`

2. **Claude design subagent** (via Agent tool):
Dispatch a subagent with this prompt:
"${subagentPrompt}"

**Error handling (all non-blocking):**
- **Auth failure:** If stderr contains "auth", "login", "unauthorized", or "API key": "Codex authentication failed. Run \`codex login\` to authenticate."
- **Timeout:** "Codex timed out after 5 minutes."
- **Empty response:** "Codex returned no response."
- On any Codex error: proceed with Claude subagent output only, tagged \`[single-model]\`.
- If Claude subagent also fails: "Outside voices unavailable — continuing with primary review."

Present Codex output under a \`CODEX SAYS (design ${isPlanDesignReview ? 'critique' : isDesignReview ? 'source audit' : 'direction'}):\` header.
Present subagent output under a \`CLAUDE SUBAGENT (design ${isPlanDesignReview ? 'completeness' : isDesignReview ? 'consistency' : 'direction'}):\` header.
${synthesisSection}

**Log the result:**
\`\`\`bash
${ctx.paths.binDir}/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"design-outside-voices","timestamp":"'"$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)"'","status":"STATUS","source":"SOURCE","commit":"'"$(git rev-parse --short HEAD)"'"}'
\`\`\`
Replace STATUS with "clean" or "issues_found", SOURCE with "codex+subagent", "codex-only", "subagent-only", or "unavailable".`;
}

// ─── Design Hard Rules (OpenAI framework + gstack slop blacklist) ───
export function generateDesignHardRules(_ctx: TemplateContext): string {
  const slopItems = AI_SLOP_BLACKLIST.map((item, i) => `${i + 1}. ${item}`).join('\n');
  const rejectionItems = OPENAI_HARD_REJECTIONS.map((item, i) => `${i + 1}. ${item}`).join('\n');
  const litmusItems = OPENAI_LITMUS_CHECKS.map((item, i) => `${i + 1}. ${item}`).join('\n');

  return `### Design Hard Rules

**Classifier — determine rule set before evaluating:**
- **MARKETING/LANDING PAGE** (hero-driven, brand-forward, conversion-focused) → apply Landing Page Rules
- **APP UI** (workspace-driven, data-dense, task-focused: dashboards, admin, settings) → apply App UI Rules
- **HYBRID** (marketing shell with app-like sections) → apply Landing Page Rules to hero/marketing sections, App UI Rules to functional sections

**Hard rejection criteria** (instant-fail patterns — flag if ANY apply):
${rejectionItems}

**Litmus checks** (answer YES/NO for each — used for cross-model consensus scoring):
${litmusItems}

**Landing page rules** (apply when classifier = MARKETING/LANDING):
- First viewport reads as one composition, not a dashboard
- Brand-first hierarchy: brand > headline > body > CTA
- Typography: expressive, purposeful — no default stacks (Inter, Roboto, Arial, system)
- No flat single-color backgrounds — use gradients, images, subtle patterns
- Hero: full-bleed, edge-to-edge, no inset/tiled/rounded variants
- Hero budget: brand, one headline, one supporting sentence, one CTA group, one image
- No cards in hero. Cards only when card IS the interaction
- One job per section: one purpose, one headline, one short supporting sentence
- Motion: 2-3 intentional motions minimum (entrance, scroll-linked, hover/reveal)
- Color: define CSS variables, avoid purple-on-white defaults, one accent color default
- Copy: product language not design commentary. "If deleting 30% improves it, keep deleting"
- Beautiful defaults: composition-first, brand as loudest text, two typefaces max, cardless by default, first viewport as poster not document

**App UI rules** (apply when classifier = APP UI):
- Calm surface hierarchy, strong typography, few colors
- Dense but readable, minimal chrome
- Organize: primary workspace, navigation, secondary context, one accent
- Avoid: dashboard-card mosaics, thick borders, decorative gradients, ornamental icons
- Copy: utility language — orientation, status, action. Not mood/brand/aspiration
- Cards only when card IS the interaction
- Section headings state what area is or what user can do ("Selected KPIs", "Plan status")

**Universal rules** (apply to ALL types):
- Define CSS variables for color system
- No default font stacks (Inter, Roboto, Arial, system)
- One job per section
- "If deleting 30% of the copy improves it, keep deleting"
- Cards earn their existence — no decorative card grids

**AI Slop blacklist** (the 10 patterns that scream "AI-generated"):
${slopItems}

Source: [OpenAI "Designing Delightful Frontends with GPT-5.4"](https://developers.openai.com/blog/designing-delightful-frontends-with-gpt-5-4) (Mar 2026) + gstack design methodology.`;
}