Document Skill original
Rendu depuis le dépôt source en conservant titres, exemples, code, tableaux, liens et images.
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:
markdown
# 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
