review-design
Skill23 starsChanged 51 days agoMITView on GitHub
Internal UI/UX design review pass of the agentic-workflow review pack — composed in-turn by review-change and product-audit; not a menu entry. Checks the changed UI against the project's design doc: consistency, states, responsiveness, and reuse — applies only when the project has a UI and the change touches it. Findings only; never edits code.
10 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- dorian-akhs/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- CsHeng/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 4, 2026
- alo-exp/silver-bullettheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- timholy/claude_configtheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- WhorideChicken/first-playabletheir own version, first seen Oct 11, 2026
- fpindej/netrocktheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use review-pr.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
DockerSkillreview-pr
Review one or more incoming Docker documentation pull requests as a maintainer. Independently validate technical claims, assess editorial fit and information architecture, choose a verdict, and draft exact inline or PR-wide feedback behind a confirmation gate. Use for requests such as "review PR 123", "is this PR correct?", "does this information belong here?", "validate this PR", or "help review backlog PRs". Do not use to maintain or fix a PR you own; use maintain-pr for that.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions10 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 10
- fpindej/netrock★ 234same name
- timholy/claude_config★ 75same name
- mgiovani/cc-arsenal★ 8same name
- alo-exp/silver-bullet★ 7same name
- CsHeng/agent-skills★ 3same name
- WhorideChicken/first-playable★ 3same name
- dirkkok101/skills★ 2same name
- herohua/skills★ 1same name
- dorian-akhs/skills★ 0same name
- Jagoda11/the-jagoda-toolkit★ 0same name
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 repository30 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- template/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- audit-docsSkill
- audit-prSkill
- batch-schedulerSkill
- discover-repository-stateSkill
- execute-phaseSkill
- fold-findingsSkill
- init-workspaceSkill
- log-sessionSkill
- orchestration-envelopeSkill
- phase-contractSkill
- pre-execution-reviewSkill
- product-auditSkill
- resolve-repository-stateSkill
- review-a11ySkill
- review-brandSkill
- review-changeSkill
- review-codeSkill
- review-debtSkill
- review-implementationSkill
- review-perfSkill
- review-securitySkill
- review-seoSkill
- review-verifySkill
- skill-lintSkill
- triage-issueSkill
- unit-laneSkill
- verification-contractSkill
- workflow-statusSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 9 edited versions we read keep these.
2
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 42
Not findings: comment/punctuation typos, formatting-only drift, style preference with no cited rule, hypothetical robustness beyond the …
- Distinctive: line 71
Every checklist item was evaluated with evidence (file:line or command output) or explicitly marked n/a with the reason.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 9 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Review Design (internal)
Composed by review-change / product-audit within their conversation — on any
agent, follow this file inline as the routed step. Findings only; never edits,
never refactors.
Scope
The diff or path/glob the caller passes; default the current change vs the default branch. State the scope at the top of the returned table.
Checklist (evaluate EVERY item — none is optional; n/a must be stated)
✓ Read the project's design doc first (e.g. docs/frontend/DESIGN.md) — cite the rule for every finding ✓ Changed components reuse the design system (no one-off styles/colors/spacing duplicating existing tokens or components) ✓ Every new/changed view handles ALL states: loading, empty, error, success (cite each) ✓ Responsive behavior stated and honored at the project's breakpoints (n/a if the platform has none) ✓ No hardcoded user-facing strings where the project declares i18n (cite the i18n doc) ✓ Visual hierarchy: primary action distinguishable, one primary action per view ✓ Consistency with sibling screens (same patterns for the same interactions — cite the diverging sibling) ✓ Destructive actions require confirmation and are visually distinct ✓ Feedback on every user action (submit, save, fail) — no silent operations
Materiality bar
Report a row only when a competent user's outcome changes or a rule the project
explicitly declares is violated — cite the rule it violates beside the evidence.
Not findings: comment/punctuation typos, formatting-only drift, style preference
with no cited rule, hypothetical robustness beyond the SPEC's named scenarios.
An empty table with Decision: PASS is the expected result for a well-formed
change — never pad the table.
Return exactly
Sev and Impact are the two published closed sets (BLOCKER | CRITICAL |
WARNING | SUGGESTION and blocking | docs-only | report-only); their meanings
are owned by review-implementation (CLASSIFY.md §Severity ladder) — assign a
token, never a prose grade.
REVIEW DESIGN — scope: <scope>
| # | Finding | Sev | Impact | Evidence | Suggested fix |
|---|---------|-----|--------|----------|---------------|
| 1 | <what> | BLOCKER|CRITICAL|WARNING|SUGGESTION | blocking|docs-only|report-only | <file:line> | <smallest action> |
Checklist: <n> evaluated, <n> pass, <n> findings, <n> n/a (<which + why>)
Summary: <1-2 sentences>
Decision: PASS | FAILFAIL if any BLOCKER, CRITICAL or WARNING finding is open; PASS otherwise.
SUGGESTION findings never block — they route to the caller's triage step.
Done when
- Every checklist item was evaluated with evidence (file:line or command output) or explicitly marked n/a with the reason.
- The fixed-format block above is returned — nothing more, nothing less — and no code was changed.
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.

