ux-review
Skill118 starsChanged 9 days agoMITView on GitHub
Validates a UX spec, HUD design, or interaction pattern library for completeness, accessibility compliance, GDD alignment, and implementation readiness. Produces APPROVED / NEEDS REVISION / MAJOR REVISION NEEDED verdict with specific gaps.
23 other projects use a version of this, 7 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- whyashthakker/estacktheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- WilliamEbong/CourseForgetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- ngmeyer/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- bookchaowalit/platform-agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studiosedited, first seen Oct 19, 2026
- venus2099/codex-game-studiosedited, first seen Oct 17, 2026
Other versions23 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 7
- Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios★ 27k61% same
- dawn840705/codex-code-studios★ 1793% same
- lilangMax/ClaudeCodeGameStudios★ 8100% same
- hongyuanc/codex-game-studios★ 596% same
- dawn840705/claude-code-studios★ 193% same
- HunLuanZhiZhu/Game-Studios-Plugin★ 199% same
- venus2099/codex-game-studios★ 162% same
Wrote their own version · 16
- gitkraken/vscode-gitlens★ 10ksame name
- cenconq25/claude-code-app-studio★ 40same name
- brianwestphal/glassbox★ 34same name
- parhamb/design-skills★ 21same name
- RoleModel/skills★ 7same name
- ngmeyer/skills★ 4same name
- 0xxxxKean/ux-review-skill★ 2same name
- 26zl/universal-agent-skills★ 2same name
- JoseArron/skills★ 2same name
- infomiho/skills★ 1same name
6 more not listed
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 repository83 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- design/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- docs/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- skill-testing-framework/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- src/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- .cursor/rules/ocgs-framework.mdcCursor rule
- adoptSkill
- architecture-decisionSkill
- architecture-reviewSkill
- art-bibleSkill
- art-generateSkill
- asset-auditSkill
- asset-specSkill
- automated-smoke-testSkill
- autopilot-playtestSkill
- balance-checkSkill
- bug-reportSkill
- bug-triageSkill
- changelogSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- concept-brainstormSkill
- consistency-checkSkill
- content-auditSkill
- create-architectureSkill
- create-control-manifestSkill
- create-epicsSkill
- create-storiesSkill
- day-one-patchSkill
- design-reviewSkill
- design-systemSkill
- dev-storySkill
- estimateSkill
- exploreSkill
- gate-checkSkill
- helpSkill
- hotfixSkill
- hybrid-prototypeSkill
- init-templateSkill
- launch-checklistSkill
- localizeSkill
- map-systemsSkill
- milestone-reviewSkill
- onboardSkill
- patch-notesSkill
- perf-profileSkill
- playtest-reportSkill
- project-stage-detectSkill
- propagate-design-changeSkill
- prototypeSkill
- qa-planSkill
- quick-designSkill
- regression-suiteSkill
- release-checklistSkill
- retrospectiveSkill
- reverse-documentSkill
- review-all-gddsSkill
- scope-checkSkill
- security-auditSkill
- setup-engineSkill
- skill-improveSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
10 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 21 edited versions we read keep these.
6
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
4
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 17
After completing a UX spec with /ux-design
- Very specific: line 18
Before handing off to ui-programmer or art-director
- Distinctive: line 19
Before the Pre-Production to Production gate check (which requires key screens to have reviewed UX specs)
- Distinctive: line 21
After major revisions to a UX spec
- Distinctive: line 38
No argument: ask the user which spec to validate
- Distinctive: line 47
Before validating any spec, load:
- Very specific: line 49
Input & Platform config: Read docs/framework/technical-preferences.md and extract ## Input & Platform.
- Very specific: line 65
Run all checks against a ux-spec.md-based document.
- Distinctive: line 252
After delivering the verdict:
- Distinctive: line 260
Never block the user from proceeding — the verdict is advisory.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 21 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
Overview
Validates UX design documents before they enter the implementation pipeline.
Acts as the quality gate between UX Design and Visual Design/Implementation in
the /team-ui pipeline.
Run this skill:
- After completing a UX spec with
/ux-design - Before handing off to
ui-programmerorart-director - Before the Pre-Production to Production gate check (which requires key screens to have reviewed UX specs)
- After major revisions to a UX spec
Verdict levels:
- APPROVED — spec is complete, consistent, and implementation-ready
- NEEDS REVISION — specific gaps found; fix before handoff but not a full redesign
- MAJOR REVISION NEEDED — fundamental issues with scope, player need, or completeness; needs significant rework
Phase 1: Parse Arguments
- Specific file path (e.g.,
/ux-review design/ux/inventory.md): validate that one document all: find all files indesign/ux/and validate eachhud: validatedesign/ux/hud.mdspecificallypatterns: validatedesign/ux/interaction-patterns.mdspecifically- No argument: ask the user which spec to validate
For all, output a summary table first (file | verdict | primary issue) then
full detail for each.
Phase 2: Load Cross-Reference Context
Before validating any spec, load:
- Input & Platform config: Read
docs/framework/technical-preferences.mdand extract## Input & Platform. This is the authoritative source for which input methods the game supports — use it to drive the Input Method Coverage checks in Phase 3A, not the spec's own header. If unconfigured, fall back to the spec header. - The accessibility tier committed to in
design/accessibility-requirements.md(if it exists) - The interaction pattern library at
design/ux/interaction-patterns.md(if it exists) - The GDDs referenced in the spec's header (read their UI Requirements sections)
- The player journey map at
design/player-journey.md(if it exists) for context-arrival validation
Phase 3A: UX Spec Validation Checklist
Run all checks against a ux-spec.md-based document.
Completeness (required sections)
- Document header present with Status, Author, Platform Target
- Purpose & Player Need — has a player-perspective need statement (not developer-perspective)
- Player Context on Arrival — describes player's state and prior activity
- Navigation Position — shows where screen sits in hierarchy
- Entry & Exit Points — all entry sources and exit destinations documented
- Layout Specification — zones defined, component inventory table present
- States & Variants — at minimum: loading, empty/populated, and error states documented
- Interaction Map — covers all target input methods (check platform target in header)
- Data Requirements — every displayed data element has a source system and owner
- Events Fired — every player action has a corresponding event or null explanation
- Transitions & Animations — at least enter/exit transitions specified
- Accessibility Requirements — screen-level requirements present
- Localization Considerations — max character counts for text elements
- Acceptance Criteria — at least 5 specific testable criteria
Quality Checks
Player Need Clarity
- Purpose is written from player perspective, not system/developer perspective
- Player goal on arrival is unambiguous ("The player arrives wanting to ___")
- The player context on arrival is specific (not just "they opened the inventory")
Completeness of States
- Error state is documented (not just happy path)
- Empty state is documented (no data scenario)
- Loading state is documented if the screen fetches async data
- Any state with a timer or auto-dismiss is documented with duration
Input Method Coverage
- If platform includes PC: keyboard-only navigation is fully specified
- If platform includes console/gamepad: d-pad navigation and face button mapping documented
- No interaction requires mouse-like precision on gamepad
- Focus order is defined (Tab order for keyboard, d-pad order for gamepad)
Data Architecture
- No data element has "UI" listed as the owner (UI must not own game state)
- Update frequency is specified for all real-time data (not just "realtime" — what triggers update?)
- Null handling is specified for all data elements (what shows when data is unavailable?)
Accessibility
- Accessibility tier from
accessibility-requirements.mdis matched or exceeded - If Basic tier: no color-only information indicators
- If Standard tier+: focus order documented, text contrast ratios specified
- If Comprehensive tier+: screen reader announcements for key state changes
- Colorblind check: any color-coded elements have non-color alternatives
GDD Alignment
- Every GDD UI Requirement referenced in the header is addressed in this spec
- No UI element displays or modifies game state without a corresponding GDD requirement
- No GDD UI Requirement is missing from this spec (cross-check the referenced GDD sections)
Pattern Library Consistency
- All interactive components reference the pattern library (or note they are new patterns)
- No pattern behavior is re-specified from scratch if it already exists in the pattern library
- Any new patterns invented in this spec are flagged for addition to the pattern library
Localization
- Character limit warnings present for all text-heavy elements
- Any layout-critical text has been flagged for 40% expansion accommodation
Acceptance Criteria Quality
- Criteria are specific enough for a QA tester who hasn't seen the design docs
- Performance criterion present (screen opens within Xms)
- Resolution criterion present
- No criterion requires reading another document to evaluate
Phase 3B: HUD Validation Checklist
Run all checks against a hud-design.md-based document.
Completeness
- HUD Philosophy defined
- Information Architecture table covers ALL systems with UI Requirements in GDDs
- Layout Zones defined with safe zone margins for all target platforms
- Every HUD element has a full specification (zone, visibility trigger, data source, priority)
- HUD States by Gameplay Context covers at minimum: exploration, combat, dialogue/cutscene, paused
- Visual Budget defined (max simultaneous elements, max screen %)
- Platform Adaptation covers all target platforms
- Tuning Knobs present for player-adjustable elements
Quality Checks
- No HUD element covers the center play area without a visibility rule to hide it
- Every information item that exists in any GDD is either in the HUD or explicitly categorized as "hidden/demand"
- All color-coded HUD elements have colorblind variants
- HUD elements in the Feedback & Notification section have queue/priority behavior defined
- Visual Budget compliance: total simultaneous elements is within budget
GDD Alignment
- All systems in
design/gdd/systems-index.mdwith UI category have representation in HUD (or justified absence)
Phase 3C: Pattern Library Validation Checklist
- Pattern catalog index is current (matches actual patterns in document)
- All standard control patterns are specified: button variants, toggle, slider, dropdown, list, grid, modal, dialog, toast, tooltip, progress bar, input field, tab bar, scroll
- All game-specific patterns needed by current UX specs are present
- Each pattern has: When to Use, When NOT to Use, full state specification, accessibility spec, implementation notes
- Animation Standards table present
- Sound Standards table present
- No conflicting behaviors between patterns (e.g., "Back" behavior consistent across all navigation patterns)
Phase 4: Output the Verdict
## UX Review: [Document Name]
**Date**: [date]
**Reviewer**: ux-review skill
**Document**: [file path]
**Platform Target**: [from header]
**Accessibility Tier**: [from header or accessibility-requirements.md]
### Completeness: [X/Y sections present]
- [x] Purpose & Player Need
- [ ] States & Variants — MISSING: error state not documented
### Quality Issues: [N found]
1. **[Issue title]** [BLOCKING / ADVISORY]
- What's wrong: [specific description]
- Where: [section name]
- Fix: [specific action to take]
### GDD Alignment: [ALIGNED / GAPS FOUND]
- GDD [name] UI Requirements — [X/Y requirements covered]
- Missing: [list any uncovered GDD requirements]
### Accessibility: [COMPLIANT / GAPS / NON-COMPLIANT]
- Target tier: [tier]
- [list specific accessibility findings]
### Pattern Library: [CONSISTENT / INCONSISTENCIES FOUND]
- [findings]
### Verdict: APPROVED / NEEDS REVISION / MAJOR REVISION NEEDED
**Blocking issues**: [N] — must be resolved before implementation
**Advisory issues**: [N] — recommended but not blocking
[For APPROVED]: This spec is ready for handoff to `/team-ui` Phase 2
(Visual Design).
[For NEEDS REVISION]: Address the [N] blocking issues above, then re-run
`/ux-review`.
[For MAJOR REVISION NEEDED]: The spec has fundamental gaps in [areas].
Recommend returning to `/ux-design` to rework [sections].Phase 5: Collaborative Protocol
This skill is READ-ONLY — it never edits or writes files. It reports findings only.
After delivering the verdict:
- For APPROVED: suggest running
/team-uito begin implementation coordination - For NEEDS REVISION: offer to help fix specific gaps ("Would you like me to help draft the missing error state?") — but do not auto-fix; wait for user instruction
- For MAJOR REVISION NEEDED: suggest returning to
/ux-designwith the specific sections to rework
Never block the user from proceeding — the verdict is advisory. Document risks, present findings, let the user decide whether to proceed despite concerns. A user who chooses to proceed with a NEEDS REVISION spec takes on the documented risk.
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.

