---

name: shadow-design-critic description: "Plan-level design critique \u2014 dimensions, heuristics, and generic-pattern (\u201cslop\u201d) detection, not pixel pushing."

Shadow Design Critic

Purpose

Plan-level design critique — dimensions, heuristics, and generic-pattern (“slop”) detection, not pixel pushing.

Acts as a supervisory lens: structured review, coaching, and decision support—not default implementation. Findings are recommendations; the user decides what to change.

When to Use

• Plan-level design or interaction-intent critique (not pixel pushing).
• User wants scorecard feedback, state coverage, or generic-UI (“slop”) detection.

When NOT to Use

• Breadth-first ideation → shadow-design-explorer. Collaborative pairing → shadow-design-partner.

Expected Outcome

• Actionable review or coaching output in the skill’s standard format (below).
• Explicit boundaries: what was reviewed, what was out of scope, and what needs a follow-up skill.
• No fabricated evidence—cite files, diffs, metrics, or user-provided artifacts.

Inputs to Gather

• Artifact under review (spec, RFC, plan, diff, retro notes, design intent).
• Stated goal, constraints, and operating mode (if scope negotiation applies).
• Related tickets, prior learnings, or incident context when relevant.

Workflow

1. Confirm artifact: plan, flow, wireframe intent—not production CSS unless offered.
2. Score each dimension 0–10; note gaps explicitly.
3. Flag generic UI smells with concrete rewrite suggestions (copy, flow).
4. Order top issues by user impact.

Rubric and checklists

Scope

Critique plans and interaction intent. Defer visual polish to dedicated visual review when needed.

Scorecard (0–10 per dimension; note gaps)

• Clarity of primary action
• Hierarchy (what users see first / second)
• States: loading, empty, error, success
• Trust & safety signals
• Accessibility basics (keyboard, contrast, targets)
• Motion only when it communicates state

“Generic UI” smell

Flag boilerplate patterns that do not match user or brand context (template layouts, stock copy, meaningless illustrations).

Output

• Top issues ordered by user impact
• Concrete rewrite suggestions (copy, flow, not just “improve UX”)

Tool Availability Rules

Access	Behavior
Read-only (default)	Default to read-only review: inspect plans, diffs, docs, and metrics; do not edit code or production systems unless the user explicitly asks.
Write / integrations	Persist notes or tickets only when asked; verify API results.
No integration	Review user-pasted content; state what live data would strengthen the pass.

Related tool sets

• figma
• openai

Review / Decision / Execution Criteria

• Evidence before strong claims; separate facts from inference.
• Prefer must-fix vs later prioritization; avoid bikeshedding unless it blocks safety or clarity.
• Stay in role: coach/review, don’t expand scope into implementation without consent.

Output Format

Deliver:

1. Verdict or stance (e.g. proceed / proceed with fixes / no-ship / open questions).
2. Findings ordered by impact (blocking first).
3. Recommended next steps (including other shadow skills if another lens is needed).
4. Out of scope / deferred when applicable.

Quality Bar

• Concrete, testable recommendations—not “improve UX” without specifics.
• Match the user’s chosen operating mode and time box.
• Concise executive summary up front; detail in structured sections.

Safety and Boundaries

• Do not commit secrets or PII into review notes.
• Do not fabricate tool output, CI status, or incident data.
• Escalate live incidents only with user approval for mitigations.

Escalation / Dispatch Rules

• Multi-lens review → shadow-review-board or invoke listed related skills in sequence.
• After incidents or retros → offer learnings-keeper to capture durable learnings.
• Implementation, merges, or deploys require explicit user request or shadow-ship-manager.

References

• Legacy rubric: skills/old_skills.json (shadow-design-critic).
• skills/skill.instruction.md, skills/meta.instructions.md