Design Review

by jezweb64965d9d9fc7No license1K starsListed Oct 8, 2026Updated Oct 8, 2026Repository updated 3 days ago

Review a web app or page for visual design quality — layout, typography, spacing, colour, hierarchy, consistency, interaction patterns, and responsive behaviour. Not a UX audit (that checks usability) — this checks whether it looks professional and polished. Produces a design findings report with screenshots. Triggers: 'design review', 'does this look good', 'review the design', 'check the layout', 'is this polished', 'visual review', 'design audit', 'make it look better', 'it looks off'.

Instructions onlyDesign & Creative

AI-generated overview

Reviews a web app or page for visual design quality and produces a findings report with screenshots.

What it does: Checks a web app or page against visual design criteria: layout and spacing, typography, colour and contrast, visual hierarchy, component consistency, interaction design, and responsive quality. Findings are graded High, Medium, or Low and written to a markdown report at .jez/artifacts/design-review.md, including an overall impression, what looks good, and a top-three fix list. Screenshots are taken for visual issues.
When to use it: Use before showing work to a client or team, when something looks off but the cause is unclear, after building a feature, or as a periodic quality check on a shipped product. It is positioned as the visual companion to a UX audit rather than a usability check.
Requirements: Instructions only; no scripts ship with the skill. It expects a browser tool for inspection and screenshots (Chrome MCP, Playwright MCP, or playwright-cli) and access to the target URL, preferring a deployed or live site over localhost. Marked compatible with claude-code only.

Design Review

Review a web app or page for visual design quality. This is not a UX audit (usability, workflow, friction) — this checks whether the design is professional, consistent, and polished.

The goal: would a design-conscious person look at this and think "this is well made" or "this looks like a developer designed it"?

When to Use

Before showing something to a client or team
When something "looks off" but you can't pinpoint why
After building a feature, before calling it done
Periodic quality check on a shipped product
After a UX audit — this is the visual companion

Browser Tool Detection

Same as ux-audit — Chrome MCP, Playwright MCP, or playwright-cli.

URL Resolution

Same as ux-audit — prefer deployed/live over localhost.

What to Check

1. Layout and Spacing

Check	Good	Bad
Consistent spacing	Same gap between all cards in a grid, same padding in all sections	Some cards have 16px gap, others 24px. Header padding differs from body
Alignment	Left edges of content align vertically across sections	Heading starts at one indent, body text at another, cards at a third
Breathing room	Generous whitespace around content, elements don't feel cramped	Text touching container edges, buttons crowded against inputs
Grid discipline	Content follows a clear column grid	Elements placed freely, no underlying structure
Responsive proportions	Sidebar/content ratio looks intentional at every width	Sidebar takes 50% on tablet, content is squeezed
Vertical rhythm	Consistent vertical spacing pattern (e.g. 8px/16px/24px/32px scale)	Random spacing: 13px here, 27px there, 8px somewhere else

2. Typography

Check	Good	Bad
Hierarchy	Clear visual difference between h1 → h2 → h3 → body	Headings and body text look the same size/weight
Line length	Body text 50-75 characters per line	Full-width text running 150+ characters — hard to read
Line height	Body text 1.5-1.7, headings 1.1-1.3	Cramped text or excessive line height
Font sizes	Consistent scale (e.g. 14/16/20/24/32)	Random sizes: 15px, 17px, 22px with no relationship
Weight usage	Regular for body, medium for labels, semibold for headings, bold sparingly	Everything bold, or everything regular with no hierarchy
Truncation	Long text truncates with ellipsis, title attribute shows full text	Text overflows container, wraps awkwardly, or is cut off without ellipsis

3. Colour and Contrast

Check	Good	Bad
Semantic colour	Using design tokens (bg-primary, text-muted-foreground)	Raw Tailwind colours (bg-blue-500, text-gray-300)
Contrast ratio	Text meets WCAG AA (4.5:1 for body, 3:1 for large text)	Light grey text on white, or dark text on dark backgrounds
Colour consistency	Same blue means the same thing everywhere (primary = action)	Blue means "clickable" in one place and "informational" in another
Dark mode	All elements visible, borders defined, no invisible text	Elements disappear, text becomes unreadable, images look wrong
Status colours	Green=success, yellow=warning, red=error consistently	Green used for both success and "active" with different meanings
Colour overuse	2-3 colours + neutrals	Rainbow of colours with no clear hierarchy

4. Visual Hierarchy

Check	Good	Bad
Primary action	One clear CTA per page, visually dominant	Three equally styled buttons competing for attention
Squint test	Squinting at the page, the most important element stands out	Everything is the same visual weight — nothing draws the eye
Progressive disclosure	Most important info visible, details available on interaction	Everything shown at once — overwhelming
Grouping	Related items are visually grouped (proximity, borders, backgrounds)	Related items scattered, unrelated items touching
Negative space	Intentional empty space that frames content	Empty space that looks accidental (uneven, trapped white space)

5. Component Consistency

Check	Good	Bad
Button styles	One primary style, one secondary, one destructive — used consistently	5 different button styles across the app
Card styles	All cards have the same border-radius, shadow, padding	Some cards rounded, some sharp, some with shadows, some without
Form inputs	All inputs same height, same border style, same focus ring	Mix of heights, border styles, focus behaviours
Icon style	One icon family (Lucide, Heroicons), consistent size and stroke	Mixed icon families, different sizes, some filled some outlined
Border radius	Consistent radius scale (e.g. 4px inputs, 8px cards, 12px modals)	Random radius values: 3px, 7px, 10px, 16px
Shadow	One or two shadow levels used consistently	Every component has a different shadow depth

6. Interaction Design

Check	Good	Bad
Hover states	Buttons, links, and clickable cards change on hover	No hover feedback — user unsure what's clickable
Focus states	Keyboard focus visible on all interactive elements	Focus ring missing or invisible against background
Active states	Nav items, tabs, sidebar links show current selection	Active item looks the same as inactive
Transitions	Subtle transitions on hover/focus (150-200ms ease)	No transitions (jarring) or slow transitions (laggy)
Loading indicators	Skeleton screens or spinners during async operations	Content pops in without warning, layout shifts
Disabled states	Disabled elements are visually muted, cursor changes	Disabled buttons look clickable, no cursor change

7. Responsive Quality

Check	Good	Bad
Mobile nav	Clean hamburger/sheet menu, easy to tap	Desktop nav squished into mobile, tiny tap targets
Image scaling	Images fill containers proportionally	Images stretched, cropped badly, or overflowing
Table responsiveness	Horizontal scroll on mobile, or stack to cards	Table wider than screen with no way to see columns
Touch targets	At least 44x44px on mobile	Tiny links, close buttons, checkboxes
Tablet	Layout works at 768px (not just desktop and phone)	Layout breaks at tablet widths, awkward gaps

Severity Guide

Level	Meaning	Example
High	Looks broken or unprofessional	Invisible text in dark mode, buttons different heights inline
Medium	Looks unpolished	Inconsistent spacing, mixed icon styles, truncation without ellipsis
Low	Nitpick	1-2px alignment, slightly different border-radius, shadow too strong

Output

Write findings to .jez/artifacts/design-review.md:

markdown

# Design Review: [App Name]**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD**URL**: [url]
## Overall Impression[1-2 sentences — professional / unpolished / inconsistent / clean]
## Findings
### High- **[issue]** at [page/component] — [what's wrong] → [fix]
### Medium- **[issue]** at [page/component] — [what's wrong] → [fix]
### Low- **[issue]** — [description]
## What Looks Good[Patterns that are well-executed and should be preserved]
## Top 3 Fixes1. [highest visual impact change]2. [second]3. [third]

# Design Review: [App Name]**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD**URL**: [url]
## Overall Impression[1-2 sentences — professional / unpolished / inconsistent / clean]
## Findings
### High- **[issue]** at [page/component] — [what's wrong] → [fix]
### Medium- **[issue]** at [page/component] — [what's wrong] → [fix]
### Low- **[issue]** — [description]
## What Looks Good[Patterns that are well-executed and should be preserved]
## Top 3 Fixes1. [highest visual impact change]2. [second]3. [third]

Take screenshots of findings where the issue is visual (most of them).

Tips

Check dark mode AND light mode — most issues appear in one but not the other
The squint test is the fastest way to find hierarchy problems
Component inconsistency is the most common issue in dev-built UIs
"Looks off" usually means spacing — check margins and padding first
If you can't identify the issue, compare to a well-designed app in the same category

Source and attribution

Source:jezweb/claude-skillsinplugins/frontend/skills/design-reviewat commit64965d9

License: No license

Content belongs to its original authors. SourceWeft indexes it from a public repository.

Report or request removal

Design Review

Design Review

When to Use

Browser Tool Detection

URL Resolution

What to Check

1. Layout and Spacing

2. Typography

3. Colour and Contrast

4. Visual Hierarchy

5. Component Consistency

6. Interaction Design

7. Responsive Quality

Severity Guide

Output

Tips

Source and attribution

More from jezweb/claude-skills

Us Business English

Uk Business English

Strategy Document

Resume Cover Letter

Proposal Writer

Nz Business English

More in Design & Creative

Theme Factory

Slack Gif Creator

Frontend Design

Canvas Design

Brand Guidelines

Frontend Design