---
name: critique
description: "Evaluate design from a UX perspective, assessing visual hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, cognitive load, and overall quality with quantitative scoring, persona-based testing, and actionable feedback. Use when the user asks to review, critique, evaluate, or give feedback on a design or component."
argument-hint: "[area (feature, page, component...)]"
user-invocable: true
---

## MANDATORY PREPARATION

Invoke {{command_prefix}}frontend-design — it contains design principles, anti-patterns, and the **Context Gathering Protocol**. Follow the protocol before proceeding — if no design context exists yet, you MUST run {{command_prefix}}teach-impeccable first. Additionally gather: what the interface is trying to accomplish.

---

Conduct a holistic design critique, evaluating whether the interface actually works — not just technically, but as a designed experience. Think like a design director giving feedback.

## Phase 1: Design Critique

Evaluate the interface across these dimensions:

### 1. AI Slop Detection (CRITICAL)

**This is the most important check.** Does this look like every other AI-generated interface from 2024-2025?

Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill — they are the fingerprints of AI-generated work. Check for the AI color palette, gradient text, dark mode with glowing accents, glassmorphism, hero metric layouts, identical card grids, generic fonts, and all other tells.

**The test**: If you showed this to someone and said "AI made this," would they believe you immediately? If yes, that's the problem.

### 2. Visual Hierarchy
- Does the eye flow to the most important element first?
- Is there a clear primary action? Can you spot it in 2 seconds?
- Do size, color, and position communicate importance correctly?
- Is there visual competition between elements that should have different weights?

### 3. Information Architecture & Cognitive Load
> *Consult [cognitive-load](reference/cognitive-load.md) for the working memory rule and 8-item checklist*
- Is the structure intuitive? Would a new user understand the organization?
- Is related content grouped logically?
- Are there too many choices at once? Count visible options at each decision point — if >4, flag it
- Is the navigation clear and predictable?
- **Progressive disclosure**: Is complexity revealed only when needed, or dumped on the user upfront?
- **Run the 8-item cognitive load checklist** from the reference. Report failure count: 0–1 = low (good), 2–3 = moderate, 4+ = critical.

### 4. Emotional Journey
- What emotion does this interface evoke? Is that intentional?
- Does it match the brand personality?
- Does it feel trustworthy, approachable, premium, playful — whatever it should feel?
- Would the target user feel "this is for me"?
- **Peak-end rule**: Is the most intense moment positive? Does the experience end well (confirmation, celebration, clear next step)?
- **Emotional valleys**: Check for onboarding frustration, error cliffs, feature discovery gaps, or anxiety spikes at high-stakes moments (payment, delete, commit)
- **Interventions at negative moments**: Are there design interventions where users are likely to feel frustrated or anxious? (progress indicators, reassurance copy, undo options, social proof)

### 5. Discoverability & Affordance
- Are interactive elements obviously interactive?
- Would a user know what to do without instructions?
- Are hover/focus states providing useful feedback?
- Are there hidden features that should be more visible?

### 6. Composition & Balance
- Does the layout feel balanced or uncomfortably weighted?
- Is whitespace used intentionally or just leftover?
- Is there visual rhythm in spacing and repetition?
- Does asymmetry feel designed or accidental?

### 7. Typography as Communication
- Does the type hierarchy clearly signal what to read first, second, third?
- Is body text comfortable to read? (line length, spacing, size)
- Do font choices reinforce the brand/tone?
- Is there enough contrast between heading levels?

### 8. Color with Purpose
- Is color used to communicate, not just decorate?
- Does the palette feel cohesive?
- Are accent colors drawing attention to the right things?
- Does it work for colorblind users? (not just technically — does meaning still come through?)

### 9. States & Edge Cases
- Empty states: Do they guide users toward action, or just say "nothing here"?
- Loading states: Do they reduce perceived wait time?
- Error states: Are they helpful and non-blaming?
- Success states: Do they confirm and guide next steps?

### 10. Microcopy & Voice
- Is the writing clear and concise?
- Does it sound like a human (the right human for this brand)?
- Are labels and buttons unambiguous?
- Does error copy help users fix the problem?

## Phase 2: Present Findings

Structure your feedback as a design director would:

### Design Health Score
> *Consult [heuristics-scoring](reference/heuristics-scoring.md)*

Score each of Nielsen's 10 heuristics 0–4. Present as a table:

| # | Heuristic | Score | Key Issue |
|---|-----------|-------|-----------|
| 1 | Visibility of System Status | ? | [specific finding or "—" if solid] |
| 2 | Match System / Real World | ? | |
| 3 | User Control and Freedom | ? | |
| 4 | Consistency and Standards | ? | |
| 5 | Error Prevention | ? | |
| 6 | Recognition Rather Than Recall | ? | |
| 7 | Flexibility and Efficiency | ? | |
| 8 | Aesthetic and Minimalist Design | ? | |
| 9 | Error Recovery | ? | |
| 10 | Help and Documentation | ? | |
| **Total** | | **??/40** | **[Rating band]** |

Be honest with scores. A 4 means genuinely excellent. Most real interfaces score 20–32.

### Anti-Patterns Verdict
**Start here.** Pass/fail: Does this look AI-generated? List specific tells from the skill's Anti-Patterns section. Be brutally honest.

### Overall Impression
A brief gut reaction — what works, what doesn't, and the single biggest opportunity.

### What's Working
Highlight 2–3 things done well. Be specific about why they work.

### Priority Issues
The 3–5 most impactful design problems, ordered by importance.

For each issue, tag with **P0–P3 severity** (consult [heuristics-scoring](reference/heuristics-scoring.md) for severity definitions):
- **[P?] What**: Name the problem clearly
- **Why it matters**: How this hurts users or undermines goals
- **Fix**: What to do about it (be concrete)
- **Suggested command**: Which command could address this (from: {{available_commands}})

### Persona Red Flags
> *Consult [personas](reference/personas.md)*

Auto-select 2–3 personas most relevant to this interface type (use the selection table in the reference). If `{{config_file}}` contains a `## Design Context` section from `teach-impeccable`, also generate 1–2 project-specific personas from the audience/brand info.

For each selected persona, walk through the primary user action and list specific red flags found:

**Alex (Power User)**: No keyboard shortcuts detected. Form requires 8 clicks for primary action. Forced modal onboarding. ⚠️ High abandonment risk.

**Jordan (First-Timer)**: Icon-only nav in sidebar. Technical jargon in error messages ("404 Not Found"). No visible help. ⚠️ Will abandon at step 2.

Be specific — name the exact elements and interactions that fail each persona. Don't write generic persona descriptions; write what broke for them.

### Minor Observations
Quick notes on smaller issues worth addressing.

**Remember**:
- Be direct — vague feedback wastes everyone's time
- Be specific — "the submit button" not "some elements"
- Say what's wrong AND why it matters to users
- Give concrete suggestions, not just "consider exploring..."
- Prioritize ruthlessly — if everything is important, nothing is
- Don't soften criticism — developers need honest feedback to ship great design

## Phase 3: Ask the User

**After presenting findings**, use targeted questions based on what was actually found. {{ask_instruction}} These answers will shape the action plan.

Ask questions along these lines (adapt to the specific findings — do NOT ask generic questions):

1. **Priority direction**: Based on the issues found, ask which category matters most to the user right now. For example: "I found problems with visual hierarchy, color usage, and information overload. Which area should we tackle first?" Offer the top 2–3 issue categories as options.

2. **Design intent**: If the critique found a tonal mismatch, ask whether it was intentional. For example: "The interface feels clinical and corporate. Is that the intended tone, or should it feel warmer/bolder/more playful?" Offer 2–3 tonal directions as options based on what would fix the issues found.

3. **Scope**: Ask how much the user wants to take on. For example: "I found N issues. Want to address everything, or focus on the top 3?" Offer scope options like "Top 3 only", "All issues", "Critical issues only".

4. **Constraints** (optional — only ask if relevant): If the findings touch many areas, ask if anything is off-limits. For example: "Should any sections stay as-is?" This prevents the plan from touching things the user considers done.

**Rules for questions**:
- Every question must reference specific findings from Phase 2 — never ask generic "who is your audience?" questions
- Keep it to 2–4 questions maximum — respect the user's time
- Offer concrete options, not open-ended prompts
- If findings are straightforward (e.g., only 1–2 clear issues), skip questions and go directly to Phase 4

## Phase 4: Recommended Actions

**After receiving the user's answers**, present a prioritized action summary reflecting the user's priorities and scope from Phase 3.

### Action Summary

List recommended commands in priority order, based on the user's answers:

1. **`{{command_prefix}}command-name`** — Brief description of what to fix (specific context from critique findings)
2. **`{{command_prefix}}command-name`** — Brief description (specific context)
...

**Rules for recommendations**:
- Only recommend commands from: {{available_commands}}
- Order by the user's stated priorities first, then by impact
- Each item's description should carry enough context that the command knows what to focus on
- Map each Priority Issue to the appropriate command
- Skip commands that would address zero issues
- If the user chose a limited scope, only include items within that scope
- If the user marked areas as off-limits, exclude commands that would touch those areas
- End with `{{command_prefix}}polish` as the final step if any fixes were recommended

After presenting the summary, tell the user:

> You can ask me to run these one at a time, all at once, or in any order you prefer.
>
> Re-run `{{command_prefix}}critique` after fixes to see your score improve.
