L’interface est localisée ; les présentations et documents des Skills sont traduits automatiquement par IA dans votre langue. Le code, les commandes, chemins et termes techniques restent en version originale, et le document de l’auteur fait foi.
Explorer les Skills
Design et création · SKILL.md

review-web-design

review-web-design

Review web design → layout, typo, color, spacing, responsive, brand, hierarchy. Use → mockup pre-dev, implemented site quality, design review, brand check, breakpoint test.

Independent GitHub snapshot · Automated classification · Original documentation governs

Documentation de la Skill

GitHub

name: review-web-design locale: caveman-ultra source_locale: en source_commit: 82c77053 fence_basis_commit: 82c77053 translator: "Julius Brussee homage — caveman" translation_date: "2026-05-03" description: > Review web design → layout, typo, color, spacing, responsive, brand, hierarchy. Use → mockup pre-dev, implemented site quality, design review, brand check, breakpoint test. license: MIT allowed-tools: Read Grep Glob WebFetch metadata: author: Philipp Thoss version: "1.0" domain: review complexity: intermediate language: multi tags: web-design, layout, typography, colour, responsive, visual-hierarchy, branding

Review Web Design

Eval web design → visual quality, consistency, cross-device.

Use When

  • Mockup|prototype pre-dev review
  • Implemented site|app design quality
  • Design review session feedback
  • Brand consistency multi-page
  • Responsive behavior across breakpoints

In

  • Required: Design (URL|mockup|screenshot|src)
  • Optional: Brand guidelines|design system
  • Optional: Target audience
  • Optional: Reference|competitor designs
  • Optional: Concerns

Do

Step 1: Visual Hierarchy

Guides eye → importance.

  • Focal point: Obvious entry per page?
  • Heading hierarchy: H1→H2→H3 logical?
  • Size contrast: Important > supporting?
  • Color contrast: CTAs prominent?
  • Whitespace: Separates groups?
  • Reading flow: F|Z pattern?
## Visual Hierarchy Assessment
| Page/Section | Focal Point | Hierarchy Clear? | Issues |
|-------------|-------------|-----------------|--------|
| Homepage | Hero section CTA | Yes | Secondary CTA competes with primary |
| Product page | Product image | Mostly | Price not prominent enough |
| Contact form | Submit button | No | Form title same size as body text |

→ Each page assessed.

If err: no mockups → live code via dev tools.

Step 2: Typography

  • Font selection: Right for brand+content?
  • Pairing: Heading+body complement (max 2-3 families)?
  • Scale: Consistent (1.25 maj 2nd, 1.333 4th)?
  • Line height: Body 1.4-1.6, headings 1.1-1.3
  • Line length: 45-75 chars (~66 optimal)
  • Weight: Used for hierarchy
  • Size: ≥16px body
/* Example well-structured type scale (1.25 ratio) */
:root {
  --text-xs: 0.64rem;    /* 10.24px */
  --text-sm: 0.8rem;     /* 12.8px */
  --text-base: 1rem;     /* 16px */
  --text-lg: 1.25rem;    /* 20px */
  --text-xl: 1.563rem;   /* 25px */
  --text-2xl: 1.953rem;  /* 31.25px */
  --text-3xl: 2.441rem;  /* 39.06px */
}

→ Typo consistent, readable, hierarchical.

If err: >3 families → consolidate.

Step 3: Color

  • Palette: Limited (3-5 + neutrals)?
  • Brand: Matches guidelines?
  • Contrast: WCAG AA (4.5:1 normal, 3:1 large)
  • Semantic: Consistent (red=err, green=ok)?
  • Color blind: Not sole means?
  • Dark/light: Both readable + brand consistent?
## Colour Assessment
| Usage | Colour | Contrast Ratio | WCAG AA | Notes |
|-------|--------|----------------|---------|-------|
| Body text on white | #333333 | 12.6:1 | Pass | Good |
| Link text on white | #2563eb | 5.2:1 | Pass | Good |
| Muted text on light gray | #9ca3af on #f3f4f6 | 2.1:1 | FAIL | Increase contrast |
| CTA button text | #ffffff on #22c55e | 3.1:1 | FAIL for small text | Use darker green or larger text |

→ Palette coherent + accessible + semantic.

If err: contrast checker tool (WebAIM).

Step 4: Layout + Spacing

  • Grid: Consistent (12-col, auto, custom)?
  • Spacing scale: Systematic (4|8px base, Tailwind)?
  • Alignment: To grid (no "almost")?
  • Density: Right for content?
  • Whitespace: Intentional?
  • Consistency: Similar = same spacing?
## Spacing Consistency Check
| Element Pair | Expected Gap | Actual Gap | Consistent? |
|-------------|-------------|------------|-------------|
| Section title to content | 24px | 24px | Yes |
| Card to card | 16px | 16px/24px | No — inconsistent |
| Form label to input | 8px | 4px/8px/12px | No — varies |

→ Systematic grid + spacing.

If err: inconsistent → adopt scale (Tailwind space-*).

Step 5: Responsive

BreakpointWidthRepresents
Mobile375pxiPhone SE / small phones
Mobile L428pxiPhone 14 / large phones
Tablet768pxiPad portrait
Desktop1280pxStandard laptop
Wide1536px+Desktop monitor

Per breakpoint:

  • Layout adapt: Reflows (stack mobile, side desktop)?
  • Touch targets: ≥44x44 mobile?
  • Text: Right size?
  • Images: Scale w/o distortion?
  • Nav: Mobile accessible?
  • No h-scroll
## Responsive Review
| Breakpoint | Layout | Touch Targets | Text | Images | Navigation | Issues |
|-----------|--------|---------------|------|--------|------------|--------|
| 375px | OK | OK | OK | Overflow on hero | Hamburger | Hero image clips |
| 768px | OK | OK | OK | OK | Hamburger | None |
| 1280px | OK | N/A | OK | OK | Full nav | None |
| 1536px | OK | N/A | Line length too long | OK | Full nav | Add max-width to content |

→ All breakpoints tested + documented.

If err: no tools → review CSS media queries.

Step 6: Brand Consistency

  • Logo: Right size, spacing, clear zone
  • Color: Matches spec (hex, not "close")
  • Typo: Matches guidelines
  • Tone: UI copy matches personality
  • Icons: Consistent set
  • Photo: Matches brand

→ Brand verified vs guidelines.

If err: no guidelines → note + assess internal consistency.

Step 7: Write Review

## Web Design Review

### Overall Impression
[2-3 sentences: overall quality, strongest and weakest aspects]

### Visual Hierarchy: [Score/5]
[Key findings with specific references]

### Typography: [Score/5]
[Key findings with specific references]

### Colour: [Score/5]
[Key findings with specific references]

### Layout & Spacing: [Score/5]
[Key findings with specific references]

### Responsive Design: [Score/5]
[Key findings with specific references]

### Brand Consistency: [Score/5]
[Key findings with specific references]

### Priority Improvements
1. [Most impactful change — specific and actionable]
2. [Second priority]
3. [Third priority]

### Positive Notes
1. [What works well and should be preserved]

→ Specific, visual-reference feedback + prioritized improvements.

If err: scoring arbitrary → pass|concern|fail.

Check

  • Visual hierarchy all major pages
  • Typo readable + consistent + scaled
  • Color contrast vs WCAG AA
  • Layout + spacing grid consistent
  • Responsive 3+ breakpoints
  • Brand vs guidelines (or internal)
  • Specific feedback w/ visual refs

Traps

  • Subjective no reason: "Don't like color" → not actionable. Explain why.
  • Ignore access: Must include WCAG contrast. Beautiful + excludes ≠ good.
  • Mockups only: Test responsive, hover, transitions — not static.
  • Prescribe: Describe problem, not specific fix.
  • No context: Banking ≠ gaming. Review against context.

→

  • review-ux-ui — usability + interaction + access
  • setup-tailwind-typescript — Tailwind CSS impl
  • scaffold-nextjs-app — Next.js scaffold
Skills enregistrées