design-review▌
jezweb/claude-skills · updated Apr 8, 2026
MDX-style export adds YAML metadata + attribution linking explainx.ai and this canonical listing URL.
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.
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:
# 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 Fixes
1. [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
How to use design-review on Cursor
AI-first code editor with Composer
Prerequisites
Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:
- ›Cursor installed and configured on your development machine
- ›Node.js version 16.0+ with npm package manager (verify with
node --version) - ›Active project directory or workspace where you want to add design-review
Execute installation command
Execute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:
The skills CLI fetches design-review from GitHub repository jezweb/claude-skills and configures it for Cursor.
Select Cursor when prompted
The CLI will show a list of available agents. Use arrow keys to navigate and space to select Cursor:
Verify installation
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
Reload or restart Cursor to activate design-review. Access the skill through slash commands (e.g., /design-review) or your agent's skill management interface.
Security & Verification Notice
We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.
Skills execute code in your development environment. Always verify the publisher's identity, review recent commits, and test in isolated environments before production deployment.
List & Monetize Your Skill
Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning
Use Cases▌
Task Automation & Efficiency
Automate repetitive workflows and reduce manual effort
Example
Generate reports, summarize documents, draft communications
Save 3-5 hours per week on routine tasks
Knowledge Enhancement
Learn new skills, understand complex topics, get expert guidance
Example
Explain concepts, provide examples, suggest learning resources
Accelerate learning and skill development by 2x
Quality Improvement
Enhance output quality through reviews, suggestions, and refinements
Example
Review drafts, suggest improvements, catch errors
Improve work quality by 30-40% with less effort
Implementation Guide▌
Prerequisites
- ›Claude Desktop or compatible AI client with skill support
- ›Clear understanding of task or problem to solve
- ›Willingness to iterate and refine outputs
Time Estimate
15-45 minutes depending on use case complexity
Installation Steps
- 1.Install skill using provided installation command
- 2.Test with simple use case relevant to your work
- 3.Evaluate output quality and relevance
- 4.Iterate on prompts to improve results
- 5.Integrate into regular workflow if valuable
Common Pitfalls
- ⚠Expecting perfect results without iteration
- ⚠Not providing enough context in prompts
- ⚠Using skill for tasks outside its intended scope
- ⚠Accepting outputs without review and validation
Best Practices▌
✓ Do
- +Start with clear, specific prompts
- +Provide relevant context and constraints
- +Review and refine all outputs before using
- +Iterate to improve output quality
- +Document successful prompt patterns
✗ Don't
- −Don't use without understanding skill limitations
- −Don't skip validation of outputs
- −Don't share sensitive information in prompts
- −Don't expect skill to replace human judgment
💡 Pro Tips
- ★Be specific about desired format and style
- ★Ask for multiple options to choose from
- ★Request explanations to understand reasoning
- ★Combine AI efficiency with human expertise
When to Use This▌
✓ Use When
Use when skill capabilities match your task, clear ROI on time saved, and you can validate outputs. Best for repetitive tasks, learning, and quality improvement.
✗ Avoid When
Avoid when task requires deep expertise you can't validate, involves sensitive decisions, or when learning process is more valuable than speed of completion.
Learning Path▌
- 1Familiarize yourself with skill capabilities and limitations
- 2Start with low-risk, non-critical tasks
- 3Progress to more complex and valuable use cases
- 4Build expertise through regular use and experimentation
Discussion
Product Hunt–style comments (not star reviews)- No comments yet — start the thread.
Ratings
4.8★★★★★29 reviews- ★★★★★Shikha Mishra· Dec 4, 2024
design-review reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
- ★★★★★Fatima Sanchez· Dec 4, 2024
design-review reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
- ★★★★★Rahul Santra· Nov 23, 2024
I recommend design-review for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.
- ★★★★★Zaid Brown· Nov 23, 2024
I recommend design-review for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.
- ★★★★★Yash Thakker· Nov 7, 2024
design-review is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
- ★★★★★Dhruvi Jain· Oct 26, 2024
Keeps context tight: design-review is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
- ★★★★★Pratham Ware· Oct 14, 2024
Useful defaults in design-review — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.
- ★★★★★Henry Sethi· Oct 14, 2024
Useful defaults in design-review — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.
- ★★★★★Mia White· Sep 25, 2024
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: design-review is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
- ★★★★★Oshnikdeep· Sep 5, 2024
design-review has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
showing 1-10 of 29