design-review

Design Review

Review a web app or page for visual design quality. This is not a UX audit (usability, workflow, friction) — this checks whether the design is professional, consistent, and polished.

The goal: would a design-conscious person look at this and think "this is well made" or "this looks like a developer designed it"?

When to Use

• Before showing something to a client or team
• When something "looks off" but you can't pinpoint why
• After building a feature, before calling it done
• Periodic quality check on a shipped product
• After a UX audit — this is the visual companion

Browser Tool Detection

Same as ux-audit — Chrome MCP, Playwright MCP, or playwright-cli.

URL Resolution

Same as ux-audit — prefer deployed/live over localhost.

What to Check

1. Layout and Spacing

| Check | Good | Bad |

|-------|------|-----|

| Consistent spacing | Same gap between all cards in a grid, same padding in all sections | Some cards have 16px gap, others 24px. Header padding differs from body |

| Alignment | Left edges of content align vertically across sections | Heading starts at one indent, body text at another, cards at a third |

| Breathing room | Generous whitespace around content, elements don't feel cramped | Text touching container edges, buttons crowded against inputs |

| Grid discipline | Content follows a clear column grid | Elements placed freely, no underlying structure |

| Responsive proportions | Sidebar/content ratio looks intentional at every width | Sidebar takes 50% on tablet, content is squeezed |

| Vertical rhythm | Consistent vertical spacing pattern (e.g. 8px/16px/24px/32px scale) | Random spacing: 13px here, 27px there, 8px somewhere else |

2. Typography

| Check | Good | Bad |

|-------|------|-----|

| Hierarchy | Clear visual difference between h1 → h2 → h3 → body | Headings and body text look the same size/weight |

| Line length | Body text 50-75 characters per line | Full-width text running 150+ characters — hard to read |

| Line height | Body text 1.5-1.7, headings 1.1-1.3 | Cramped text or excessive line height |

| Font sizes | Consistent scale (e.g. 14/16/20/24/32) | Random sizes: 15px, 17px, 22px with no relationship |

| Weight usage | Regular for body, medium for labels, semibold for headings, bold sparingly | Everything bold, or everything regular with no hierarchy |

| Truncation | Long text truncates with ellipsis, title attribute shows full text | Text overflows container, wraps awkwardly, or is cut off without ellipsis |

3. Colour and Contrast

| Check | Good | Bad |

|-------|------|-----|

| Semantic colour | Using design tokens (bg-primary, text-muted-foreground) | Raw Tailwind colours (bg-blue-500, text-gray-300) |

| Contrast ratio | Text meets WCAG AA (4.5:1 for body, 3:1 for large text) | Light grey text on white, or dark text on dark backgrounds |

| Colour consistency | Same blue means the same thing everywhere (primary = action) | Blue means "clickable" in one place and "informational" in another |

| Dark mode | All elements visible, borders defined, no invisible text | Elements disappear, text becomes unreadable, images look wrong |

| Status colours | Green=success, yellow=warning, red=error consistently | Green used for both success and "active" with different meanings |

| Colour overuse | 2-3 colours + neutrals | Rainbow of colours with no clear hierarchy |

4. Visual Hierarchy

| Check | Good | Bad |

|-------|------|-----|

| Primary action | One clear CTA per page, visually dominant | Three equally styled buttons competing for attention |

| Squint test | Squinting at the page, the most important element stands out | Everything is the same visual weight — nothing draws the eye |

| Progressive disclosure | Most important info visible, details available on interaction | Everything shown at once — overwhelming |

| Grouping | Related items are visually grouped (proximity, borders, backgrounds) | Related items scattered, unrelated items touching |

| Negative space | Intentional empty space that frames content | Empty space that looks accidental (uneven, trapped white space) |

5. Component Consistency

| Check | Good | Bad |

|-------|------|-----|

| Button styles | One primary style, one secondary, one destructive — used consistently | 5 different button styles across the app |

| Card styles | All cards have the same border-radius, shadow, padding | Some cards rounded, some sharp, some with shadows, some without |

| Form inputs | All inputs same height, same border style, same focus ring | Mix of heights, border styles, focus behaviours |

| Icon style | One icon family (Lucide, Heroicons), consistent size and stroke | Mixed icon families, different sizes, some filled some outlined |

| Border radius | Consistent radius scale (e.g. 4px inputs, 8px cards, 12px modals) | Random radius values: 3px, 7px, 10px, 16px |

| Shadow | One or two shadow levels used consistently | Every component has a different shadow depth |

6. Interaction Design

| Check | Good | Bad |

|-------|------|-----|

| Hover states | Buttons, links, and clickable cards change on hover | No hover feedback — user unsure what's clickable |

| Focus states | Keyboard focus visible on all interactive elements | Focus ring missing or invisible against background |

| Active states | Nav items, tabs, sidebar links show current selection | Active item looks the same as inactive |

| Transitions | Subtle transitions on hover/focus (150-200ms ease) | No transitions (jarring) or slow transitions (laggy) |

| Loading indicators | Skeleton screens or spinners during async operations | Content pops in without warning, layout shifts |

| Disabled states | Disabled elements are visually muted, cursor changes | Disabled buttons look clickable, no cursor change |

7. Responsive Quality

| Check | Good | Bad |

|-------|------|-----|

| Mobile nav | Clean hamburger/sheet menu, easy to tap | Desktop nav squished into mobile, tiny tap targets |

| Image scaling | Images fill containers proportionally | Images stretched, cropped badly, or overflowing |

| Table responsiveness | Horizontal scroll on mobile, or stack to cards | Table wider than screen with no way to see columns |

| Touch targets | At least 44x44px on mobile | Tiny links, close buttons, checkboxes |

| Tablet | Layout works at 768px (not just desktop and phone) | Layout breaks at tablet widths, awkward gaps |

Severity Guide

| Level | Meaning | Example |

|-------|---------|---------|

| High | Looks broken or unprofessional | Invisible text in dark mode, buttons different heights inline |

| Medium | Looks unpolished | Inconsistent spacing, mixed icon styles, truncation without ellipsis |

| Low | Nitpick | 1-2px alignment, slightly different border-radius, shadow too strong |

Output

Write findings to .jez/artifacts/design-review.md:

# Design Review: [App Name]
**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD
**URL**: [url]

## Overall Impression
[1-2 sentences — professional / unpolished / inconsistent / clean]

## Findings

### High
- **[issue]** at [page/component] — [what's wrong] → [fix]

### Medium
- **[issue]** at [page/component] — [what's wrong] → [fix]

### Low
- **[issue]** — [description]

## What Looks Good
[Patterns that are well-executed and should be preserved]

## Top 3 Fixes
1. [highest visual impact change]
2. [second]
3. [third]

Take screenshots of findings where the issue is visual (most of them).

Tips

• Check dark mode AND light mode — most issues appear in one but not the other
• The squint test is the fastest way to find hierarchy problems
• Component inconsistency is the most common issue in dev-built UIs
• "Looks off" usually means spacing — check margins and padding first
• If you can't identify the issue, compare to a well-designed app in the same category