agentleFS
Sign inStart free
21st-dev21st-dev/skill/skills/21st-ui-review/SKILL.md

21st-ui-review

Skill9 starsChanged 2 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Review existing UI against the project's design context, accessibility expectations, responsive behavior, interaction quality, and high-confidence production rules. Use for UI audits, design QA, frontend review, accessibility review, consistency checks, or requests to find and safely fix visual defects. Trigger for requests such as "review this UI", "audit this page", "find design issues", "check responsiveness", or "fix obvious UX problems". Use 21st-ui-build when the request is primarily to create new UI.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

  • Other versions1 project uses a version of this.

    Word for word · 1

    1. masterpeteworld/claude-skills★ 0100% same

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 0

    None found.

    How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.

  • In this repository6 other files it gives its agents.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈3

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Read .21st/design.json, project instructions, and the relevant source.

    line 12
  2. Distinctive:

    Run the deterministic review first:

    line 13
  3. Very specific:

    Use 21st review <path> --fix only for deterministic, low-ambiguity fixes.

    line 29
  4. Distinctive:

    Never silently redesign, change brand identity, or alter product behavior.

    line 30
  5. Distinctive:

    Run relevant project tests after fixes and rerun review to prove resolution.

    line 31

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Review UI with evidence

Separate deterministic defects from subjective design recommendations.

Workflow

  1. Read .21st/design.json, project instructions, and the relevant source.

  2. Run the deterministic review first:

    21st review <path>
21st review <path> --json
  3. Inspect the actual component composition and runtime states. Validate claims against code rather than inferring behavior from names.
  4. Group findings into:
    • deterministic defects;
    • design-system drift;
    • accessibility and interaction defects;
    • responsive risks;
    • subjective product/design recommendations.
  5. Prioritize by user impact and include exact file and line attribution.
  6. Use 21st review <path> --fix only for deterministic, low-ambiguity fixes. Never silently redesign, change brand identity, or alter product behavior.
  7. Run relevant project tests after fixes and rerun review to prove resolution.

Review priorities

  • semantic controls and accessible names;
  • keyboard access, focus visibility, and dialog/menu behavior;
  • image alternatives and meaningful labels;
  • touch target size and disabled/loading states;
  • responsive overflow and fixed-width assumptions;
  • reduced-motion handling;
  • hardcoded visual values that conflict with project tokens;
  • duplicate primitives instead of existing components;
  • inconsistent typography, radius, spacing, shadows, and icons;
  • fake data, placeholder copy, or missing empty/error states.

Output

Lead with actionable findings ordered by severity. Keep subjective suggestions clearly labeled. If no issue is proven, say so and state what was inspected.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

Check your setup, free