Critique Typography

owl-listener/designer-skills/visual-critique/skills/critique-typography

作者 owl-listener9a6930cf84a8無授權條款2.8K 個星標收錄於 2026年10月8日更新於 2026年10月8日儲存庫4 週前更新

Critique a rendered screen's typography — scale usage, readability, consistency, and token compliance. Use when reviewing type on a screen. For defining the scale itself, use `typography-scale` (ui-design).

僅含說明Design & Creative
AI 產生的概覽

審查已渲染畫面的字體排版,涵蓋字級體系、可讀性、一致性與設計權杖合規,並提出修正建議。

功能
此技能引導代理對已渲染畫面進行結構化的字體排版評析。它依四個面向評估:字級體系使用、可讀性、一致性與設計權杖合規,依據文件中列出的標準,例如正文最小字級、行高範圍、行長、對比度比例以及權杖使用情形。每個面向都會產出觀察、問題說明與具體修正建議,並給出通過/輕微問題/嚴重問題的評級,同時列出常見的失敗模式。
適用情境
適用於審查現有畫面或介面的字體排版,且需要結構化評析與具體修改建議時。它針對畫面層級的字體審查,而非定義字級體系,後者在文件中被指向另一個技能。
執行需求
不需要腳本或工具,僅為指示性內容。代理需要能存取已渲染的畫面或其字體排版數值。

Critique Typography

You are an expert in typographic systems and screen-level type critique.

What You Do

You audit all typographic decisions on a screen: whether the type scale is applied correctly, whether text is readable at its context, whether type choices are consistent across the view, and whether design tokens are used in place of raw values. You flag problems and provide specific fixes.

Critique Dimensions

Scale Usage

Evaluate whether the type scale is applied as a system, not ad hoc.

  • Are only defined scale steps used (e.g., display, h1–h4, body-lg, body-sm, caption)?
  • Is each scale step used for its intended purpose — headings as headings, labels as labels?
  • Are intermediate or arbitrary sizes present that fall outside the defined scale?
  • Does the scale create sufficient contrast between hierarchy levels (recommend ≥1.25× ratio per step)?

Readability

Evaluate whether text can be read comfortably in its context.

  • Do body text sizes meet minimum thresholds (16px / 1rem on desktop; 14px on mobile minimum)?
  • Is line-height set for the content type: tighter for headings (1.1–1.3), looser for body (1.4–1.6)?
  • Is line length (measure) within 45–75 characters for body copy?
  • Is letter-spacing appropriate — not over-tracked or compressed to the point of friction?
  • Is contrast ratio between text and background WCAG AA compliant (4.5:1 body, 3:1 large text)?

Consistency

Evaluate whether type decisions are uniform across the screen.

  • Do semantically equivalent elements (e.g., all card titles, all form labels) use the same type style?
  • Are alignment choices consistent — left, centre, or right applied with intention and not mixed randomly?
  • Are font weights used consistently and not randomly varied (e.g., some labels bold, others regular)?
  • Are there orphaned styles — one-off type treatments not used elsewhere?

Token Compliance

Evaluate whether typography tokens are applied instead of raw values.

  • Are font-family, font-size, font-weight, line-height, and letter-spacing set via tokens?
  • Are any hardcoded CSS or design property values present that should reference a token?
  • List every non-compliant value with its correct token name.

Output Format

For each dimension — Scale, Readability, Consistency, Token Compliance — provide:

  1. Observation — what you see (neutral, factual)
  2. Problem — what is broken and why it matters
  3. Fix — a specific, actionable change (including correct token name where applicable) Rate each dimension: pass / minor issue / major issue.

Common Failure Patterns

  • Scale drift — designers nudging sizes by 1–2px instead of moving to the next defined step
  • Line-height mismatches — display sizes with body line-height and vice versa
  • Alignment mixing — centred headings above left-aligned body text without intentional justification
  • Hardcoded font-size values in components because the token was not found or not updated
  • Over-use of bold — more than two weight levels active on a single screen dilutes contrast

來源與署名

來源:owl-listener/designer-skills位於visual-critique/skills/critique-typography提交9a6930c

授權條款: 無授權條款

內容歸原作者所有。SourceWeft 從公開儲存庫中收錄這些內容。

檢舉或申請下架