heuristic
Skill441 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Produce a scored heuristic critique of the UI using Nielsen's 10 + 6 design laws + optional persona walkthroughs. Outputs a machine-parseable scorecard plus a 0-100 UsabilityScore (the judged companion to the deterministic UICraftScore). Invoke when the user asks for heuristic on their UI, or mentions 'heuristic' alongside design / UI / frontend work.
In this repository36 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- skills/ui-craft/references/agents.mdAGENTS.md
- adaptSkill
- animateSkill
- auditSkill
- bolderSkill
- briefSkill
- clarifySkill
- colorizeSkill
- craftSkill
- critiqueSkill
- delightSkill
- distillSkill
- extractSkill
- finalizeSkill
- hardenSkill
- polishSkill
- quieterSkill
- redesignSkill
- rememberSkill
- sddesignSkill
- shapeSkill
- startSkill
- tokensSkill
- typesetSkill
- ui-craft-dense-dashboardSkill
- ui-craft-editorialSkill
- ui-craft-minimalSkill
- ui-craftSkill
- unhappySkill
- friction-logSkill
- friction-logSkill
- ui-craft-dense-dashboardSkill
- ui-craft-editorialSkill
- ui-craft-minimalSkill
- ui-craftSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 12
Step 1 — Load the methodology: Read references/heuristics.md for the full rubric, scoring definitions, design law details, and the required …
- Very specific: line 27
Step 4 — Persona walkthrough (if
--persona=present): If the args include --persona=<name>, load references/personas.md and run the … - Very specific: line 33
Step 7 — Output: Use the exact scorecard format in references/heuristics.md:
- Distinctive: line 48
Do NOT edit code. This is a scored critique.
≈ “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.
Files
<!-- HARNESS MIRROR — do not edit here. Canonical source: skills/ or commands/. After editing source, copy into cli/assets/<harness>/ and repo-root harness mirrors. -->Context: this sub-skill is one lens of the broader ui-craft skill. If the ui-craft skill is also installed, read its SKILL.md first for Discovery + Anti-Slop + Craft Test, then apply the specific lens below.
Score the UI at $ARGUMENTS against Nielsen's 10 + 6 design laws. Load the ui-craft skill.
Step 1 — Load the methodology. Read references/heuristics.md for the full rubric, scoring definitions, design law details, and the required output format. Do NOT invent a new format or a new scale.
Step 2 — Walk Nielsen's 10 heuristics. Score each 1-5 per the rubric:
- 1 blocks users · 2 severe friction · 3 works but confusing · 4 works, minor polish · 5 best-in-class
For every heuristic, write a concrete finding — quote text, count elements, name the broken flow. Vague findings are rejected.
Step 3 — Audit the 6 design laws. PASS / FAIL each with a specific detail:
- Fitts's Law — touch target sizing, CTA placement
- Hick's Law — choice density, nav + select sizing
- Doherty Threshold — perceived latency, optimistic UI
- Cleveland-McGill — chart encoding choice
- Miller's Law — nav depth, form section counts
- Tesler's Law — where complexity lives
Step 4 — Persona walkthrough (if --persona= present). If the args include --persona=<name>, load references/personas.md and run the matching walkthrough checklist. Supported: priya, jordan, adaeze, kwame, margo, all. Output the walkthrough as a | Checklist item | Pass/Fail | Finding | Impact | table. Without the flag, skip this step.
Step 5 — Rank findings by impact tag. Impact order: blocks-conversion > adds-friction > reduces-trust > minor-polish. Include at most 5 findings in the ranked list; cut anything at minor-polish unless there are no higher-impact findings.
Step 6 — Compute the UsabilityScore. Roll the scorecard into a 0-100 number + grade per the UsabilityScore formula in references/heuristics.md: heuristic_base = round(((mean(nielsen_scores) − 1) / 4) × 100), minus 5 × (failed design laws), clamped [0,100]. Same A/B/C/D/F bands as UICraftScore. Always label it (judged) — it is not deterministic and must never gate CI. If the args include --json, also emit the machine-readable block. If the user asks for the full picture, build the Extended quality report by fetching the deterministic UICraftScore (node scripts/eval.mjs <path> --json or the score_ui MCP tool) and placing both side by side — never average them.
Step 7 — Output. Use the exact scorecard format in references/heuristics.md:
## Heuristic Scorecardtable## Design Law Audittable## Persona Walkthroughtable (only if--persona=was passed)## Top findings (ranked by impact)— numbered list, 3-5 items## UsabilityScoreblock — the 0-100 score + grade + component breakdown
Knob awareness: knob-agnostic. Usability is not a knob — a 2 is a 2 whether CRAFT_LEVEL is 3 or 9. Do not soften scores based on CRAFT_LEVEL.
Output contract:
- This command produces a critique artifact, not code. No edits unless the user explicitly asks in a follow-up.
- The scorecard is machine-parseable markdown. A PM can paste it into any issue tracker and file tickets row-by-row. Frame it that way in any preamble.
- No "First Impressions" paragraph, no hedging, no praise padding. Tables + ranked list only.
Do NOT edit code. This is a scored critique.
Next step: Fix the findings, then /finalize — the scorecard is the input to a gated ship (rung 3).
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
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.

