design

Design

Umbrella skill for design workflows: UX copy, design systems, critique, accessibility review, developer handoff, and user research synthesis. Each mode loads its own reference files on demand.

---

Mode Detection

Classify into one mode before proceeding.

| Mode | Signal Phrases | Reference |

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

| UX-COPY | write copy, button text, error message, empty state, onboarding copy, tooltip text, confirmation dialog, notification copy | references/ux-copy.md |

| DESIGN-SYSTEM | design tokens, component library, naming conventions, audit components, document component, extend system, theme architecture | references/design-systems.md |

| CRITIQUE | review design, critique mockup, design feedback, evaluate screen, visual hierarchy, usability review | references/design-critique.md |

| ACCESSIBILITY | WCAG, accessibility audit, color contrast, keyboard navigation, screen reader, a11y, focus management, ARIA | references/accessibility-review.md |

| HANDOFF | developer handoff, spec sheet, handoff doc, implementation spec, design-to-dev, responsive spec | references/design-handoff.md |

| RESEARCH | synthesize research, interview analysis, usability findings, survey results, user segments, research themes | (inline — see workflow) |

If the request spans modes, pick the primary mode and note the secondary.

---

Workflow by Mode

UX-COPY Mode

Load: references/ux-copy.md, references/llm-design-failure-modes.md

1. Gather context — Ask conversationally:

• Component type (button, error, empty state, tooltip, confirmation, notification, onboarding)
• User state and emotional context (frustrated, exploring, completing a task)
• Brand voice (formal, friendly, playful, reassuring)
• Constraints (character limits, platform guidelines, localization needs)
• Existing copy patterns (what terminology the product already uses)

1. Generate copy using component-specific patterns from reference:

• Primary recommendation with rationale
• 2-3 alternatives with tone/context guidance
• Localization notes (character expansion, idiom risks, cultural context)

1. Validate — Check against these gates:

• Copy uses product's existing terminology consistently
• Action labels match outcomes (button says what it does)
• Error messages follow What happened + Why + How to fix
• Character limits respected for target platform
• No jargon without explanation

Gate: Copy exists for all requested components. Each piece has rationale tied to user context. Alternatives provided with differentiated use cases.

DESIGN-SYSTEM Mode

Load: references/design-systems.md, references/llm-design-failure-modes.md

1. Determine operation:

| Operation | Inputs | Key Actions |

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

| Audit | Component library or codebase | Check naming consistency, token coverage, hardcoded values, state completeness, documentation gaps |

| Document | Component name + context | Generate props/variants/states/accessibility/usage spec |

| Extend | Gap description + existing system | Propose new component using existing tokens and patterns, show relationship to existing components |

1. Execute using design token architecture from reference:

• Tokens: color (brand, semantic, neutral), typography (scale, weights, line heights), spacing (scale, component padding), borders (radius, width), shadows (elevation), motion (duration, easing)
• Components: variants, states (default, hover, active, disabled, loading, error), sizes, accessibility, composition patterns
• Patterns: form patterns, navigation patterns, data display, feedback

1. Validate:

| Check | Criteria |

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

| Naming | Consistent convention across all components |

| Tokens | No hardcoded values — everything references a token |

| States | All interactive states defined (default, hover, active, disabled, loading, error) |

| A11y | ARIA roles, keyboard behavior, screen reader announcements documented |

| Composition | Component works standalone and composed with others |

Gate: Output uses consistent naming. All values reference tokens. Interactive states complete. Accessibility documented.

CRITIQUE Mode

Load: references/design-critique.md, references/llm-design-failure-modes.md

1. Gather context:

• Design stage (exploration, refinement, final polish)
• Target users and their goals
• Focus area (optional — "just the navigation" vs full review)
• Platform (web desktop, web mobile, native iOS, native Android)

1. Apply structured critique — Four-step method:

• Describe: What is present? Elements, layout, visual relationships. No judgment yet.
• Analyze: How are design principles applied? Hierarchy, contrast, alignment, proximity, repetition.
• Interpret: What does the design communicate? Emotional tone, brand alignment, user expectations.
• Evaluate: What works, what could improve, and specific recommendations.

1. Evaluate against heuristics — Apply Nielsen's 10 to the specific design:

| Heuristic | Key Question |

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

| Visibility of system status | Does the user know what's happening? |

| Match with real world | Does it use the user's language and mental models? |

| User control and freedom | Can the user undo, go back, escape? |

| Consistency and standards | Does it follow platform conventions and its own patterns? |

| Error prevention | Does the design prevent errors before they happen? |

| Recognition over recall | Are options visible, not memorized? |

| Flexibility and efficiency | Does it serve both novices and experts? |

| Aesthetic and minimalist design | Does every element earn its space? |

| Error recovery | Are errors explained with clear recovery paths? |

| Help and documentation | Is contextual help available where needed? |

1. Match feedback to stage:

| Stage | Focus | Avoid |

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

| Exploration | Concept direction, user flow logic, information architecture | Pixel-level visual polish |

| Refinement | Visual hierarchy, interaction patterns, consistency, edge cases | Questioning the fundamental approach |

| Final | Color contrast, spacing precision, copy accuracy, accessibility | Structural redesign suggestions |

Gate: Critique covers usability, visual hierarchy, consistency, and accessibility. Feedback is specific (element + issue + recommendation). Positive observations included. Stage-appropriate depth.

ACCESSIBILITY Mode

Load: references/accessibility-review.md, references/llm-design-failure-modes.md

1. Determine scope: Full WCAG 2.1 AA audit vs targeted check (contrast, keyboard, screen reader).

1. Audit by WCAG principle:

| Principle | Key Criteria |

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

| Perceivable | Alt text (1.1.1), semantic structure (1.3.1), text contrast 4.5:1 (1.4.3), UI contrast 3:1 (1.4.11) |

| Operable | Keyboard access (2.1.1), focus order (2.4.3), visible focus (2.4.7), touch targets 44x44px (2.5.5) |

| Understandable | Predictable behavior (3.2.1), error identification (3.3.1), input labels (3.3.2) |

| Robust | Name/role/value for all UI components (4.1.2) |

1. Check component-specific patterns from reference (buttons, forms, modals, navigation, data tables, carousels).

1. Generate audit report with:

• Issue count by severity (Critical, Major, Minor)
• Each finding: WCAG criterion, location, issue, severity, remediation
• Color contrast check table (foreground, background, ratio, required, pass/fail)
• Keyboard navigation map
• Screen reader announcement check
• Priority fixes ranked by user impact

Gate: Audit covers all four WCAG principles. Each finding cites a specific WCAG criterion. Remediation provided for every issue. Severity reflects real user impact.

HANDOFF Mode

Load: references/design-handoff.md, references/llm-design-failure-modes.md

1. Gather inputs:

• Design (Figma URL, screenshot, description)
• Tech stack (framework, CSS approach, component library)
• Design system tokens (if available)
• Target breakpoints

1. Generate spec covering all artifact categories:

| Category | Contents |

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

| Layout | Grid system, breakpoints, responsive behavior rules |

| Design tokens | Color, typography, spacing, elevation — token names mapped to values |

| Components | Name, variant, props, special behavior notes |

| States | Every interactive element: default, hover, active, disabled, loading, error |

| Interactions | Click/tap, hover, transitions (duration + easing), gestures |

| Content | Character limits, truncation rules, empty states, loading states |

| Edge cases | Min/max content, i18n text expansion, slow connections, missing data |

| Accessibility | Focus order, ARIA labels/roles, keyboard interactions, screen reader announcements |

| Animation | Element, trigger, description, duration (ms), easing function |

1. Validate completeness:

• Every interactive element has all states specified
• Token references used (not raw values)
• Edge cases documented (empty, loading, error, overflow, missing data)
• Responsive behavior explicit at each breakpoint
• Accessibility requirements stated

Gate: Spec covers all categories in the table. Uses token references. All states documented. Edge cases present. A developer can build from this spec without guessing.

RESEARCH Mode

Load: references/llm-design-failure-modes.md

1. Accept inputs — Interview transcripts, survey data, usability test notes, support tickets, app reviews, NPS responses.

1. Process each source:

• Extract observations (what happened), verbatim quotes, behaviors (vs stated preferences), pain points, positive signals, context
• Behavioral data outweighs stated preferences. What users do > what users say.

1. Synthesize:

• Affinity mapping: one observation per note, let clusters emerge, split large clusters
• Theme development: initial codes -> theme candidates -> review against evidence -> refined themes
• Triangulation: findings supported by multiple sources are stronger. Flag single-source findings.

1. Priority matrix:

| | High Impact | Low Impact |

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

| High Frequency | Top priority | Quality-of-life |

| Low Frequency | Segment-specific | Note and deprioritize |

1. Generate synthesis:

• Executive summary (3-4 sentences)
• Key themes: name, prevalence (X of Y participants), summary, supporting evidence with quotes, implication
• Insights-to-opportunities table: insight, opportunity, impact, effort
• User segments identified: name, characteristics, needs, rough size
• Prioritized recommendations with evidence basis
• Questions for further research
• Methodology notes and limitations

Gate: Themes supported by evidence with quotes. Behaviors distinguished from stated preferences. Quote attribution uses participant type ("Enterprise admin, 200-person team"), not names. Recommendations tied to specific findings.

---

LLM Failure Modes in Design Work

Load references/llm-design-failure-modes.md for all modes. These are specific ways LLMs fail at design tasks:

| Failure Mode | What Happens | Defense |

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

| Generic copy | Copy sounds professional but lacks product personality and context | Ground every piece in the product's existing voice, user's emotional state, and specific feature context |

| Inaccessible suggestions | Recommends color combinations or patterns that fail WCAG | Check every color pairing against 4.5:1 (text) and 3:1 (UI) ratios. Verify keyboard paths. |

| Platform-blind critique | Applies desktop heuristics to mobile or iOS patterns to Android | Identify target platform first. Apply platform-specific conventions. |

| Missing edge cases | Specs cover happy path but omit empty, loading, error, overflow, i18n states | Use the edge case checklist from handoff reference for every spec. |

| Surface-level critique | "Looks clean" or "good hierarchy" without specificity | Every critique finding names the element, the issue, and a concrete recommendation. |

| Fabricated research | Invents plausible user quotes, statistics, or persona details | Every finding cites user-provided source material. Flag confidence levels. Mark assumptions explicitly. |

| Token-value confusion | Specs use raw px/hex values instead of design tokens | Reference token names. Flag any raw value as "needs token mapping." |

| Framework dumping | Lists heuristics or WCAG criteria as a checklist without applying to the specific design | Apply each criterion to the actual design. Skip criteria that do not apply. Explain how each applies. |

---

Output Conventions

• Markdown with clear headers. Scannable by busy designers and developers.
• Tables for comparisons, audit findings, component specs, token mappings.
• Severity labels: Critical (blocks users), Major (degrades experience), Minor (polish).
• Every recommendation is specific enough to act on. "Improve contrast" is not actionable. "Change body text from #999 to #595959 on #fff background to meet 4.5:1 ratio" is.
• Include what works well alongside what needs improvement.

---

Reference Loading Table

| Mode | Primary Reference | Secondary Reference |

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

| UX-COPY | references/ux-copy.md | references/llm-design-failure-modes.md |

| DESIGN-SYSTEM | references/design-systems.md | references/llm-design-failure-modes.md |

| CRITIQUE | references/design-critique.md | references/llm-design-failure-modes.md |

| ACCESSIBILITY | references/accessibility-review.md | references/llm-design-failure-modes.md |

| HANDOFF | references/design-handoff.md | references/llm-design-failure-modes.md |

| RESEARCH | (inline) | references/llm-design-failure-modes.md |