IMPORTANT: This is a real scenario. Choose which existing frontend skill or skills to load from this directory. Inspect the skill folders if needed. User request: "Please review this checkout flow for UX problems, but also flag accessibility and performance issues before we ship." Return exactly three lines: Skills: ...\nOrder: ...\nWhy: ...


.pi/
adapt/
animate/
arrange/
audit/
bolder/
clarify/
colorize/
critique/
delight/
distill/
extract/
frontend-design/
harden/
normalize/
onboard/
optimize/
overdrive/
polish/
quieter/
teach-impeccable/
typeset/


---
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.
---

## MANDATORY PREPARATION

Invoke /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 /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: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive)

### 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 `AGENTS.md` 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 the user directly to clarify what you cannot infer. 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-name`** — Brief description of what to fix (specific context from critique findings)
2. **`/command-name`** — Brief description (specific context)
...

**Rules for recommendations**:
- Only recommend commands from: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive
- 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 `/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 `/critique` after fixes to see your score improve.


must-3b3bf92b-0

Invoke /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 /teach-impeccable first. Additionally gather: what the interface is trying to accomplish.

must-3b3bf92b-1

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.

must-3b3bf92b-2

- Is there visual competition between elements that should have different weights?

reference/cognitive-load.md

reference/cognitive-load.md

- **Run the 8-item cognitive load checklist** from the reference. Report failure count: 0–1 = low (good), 2–3 = moderate, 4+ = critical.

must-3b3bf92b-3

- Does it feel trustworthy, approachable, premium, playful — whatever it should feel?

- **Emotional valleys**: Check for onboarding frustration, error cliffs, feature discovery gaps, or anxiety spikes at high-stakes moments (payment, delete, commit)

must-3b3bf92b-4

- Are there hidden features that should be more visible?

- Error states: Are they helpful and non-blaming?

- Does error copy help users fix the problem?

reference/heuristics-scoring.md

reference/heuristics-scoring.md

| 5 | Error Prevention | ? | |

| 9 | Error Recovery | ? | |

reference/heuristics-scoring.md

reference/heuristics-scoring.md

reference/personas.md

reference/personas.md

AGENTS.md

AGENTS.md

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

must-3b3bf92b-5

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

must-3b3bf92b-6

- Don't soften criticism — developers need honest feedback to ship great design

must-3b3bf92b-7

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

must-3b3bf92b-8

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.

must-3b3bf92b-9

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.

must-3b3bf92b-10

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.

must-3b3bf92b-11

- Every question must reference specific findings from Phase 2 — never ask generic "who is your audience?" questions

must-3b3bf92b-12

- Each item's description should carry enough context that the command knows what to focus on

must-3b3bf92b-13

> You can ask me to run these one at a time, all at once, or in any order you prefer.


**Planning frontend design steps**

I see that I need to start by invoking the frontend-design skill before moving forward. The user is interested in UX, accessibility, and performance, so I should load up the critique for a UX audit and also optimize for accessibility and performance. There's an "audit" skill in the folder that I need to check out. It seems like a logical next step to inspect that audit skill to ensure everything is in order!


---
name: audit
description: Run technical quality checks across accessibility, performance, theming, responsive design, and anti-patterns. Generates a scored report with P0-P3 severity ratings and actionable plan. Use when the user wants an accessibility check, performance audit, or technical quality review.
---

## MANDATORY PREPARATION

Invoke /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 /teach-impeccable first.

---

Run systematic **technical** quality checks and generate a comprehensive report. Don't fix issues — document them for other commands to address.

This is a code-level audit, not a design critique. Check what's measurable and verifiable in the implementation.

## Diagnostic Scan

Run comprehensive checks across 5 dimensions. Score each dimension 0-4 using the criteria below.

### 1. Accessibility (A11y)

**Check for**:
- **Contrast issues**: Text contrast ratios < 4.5:1 (or 7:1 for AAA)
- **Missing ARIA**: Interactive elements without proper roles, labels, or states
- **Keyboard navigation**: Missing focus indicators, illogical tab order, keyboard traps
- **Semantic HTML**: Improper heading hierarchy, missing landmarks, divs instead of buttons
- **Alt text**: Missing or poor image descriptions
- **Form issues**: Inputs without labels, poor error messaging, missing required indicators

**Score 0-4**: 0=Inaccessible (fails WCAG A), 1=Major gaps (few ARIA labels, no keyboard nav), 2=Partial (some a11y effort, significant gaps), 3=Good (WCAG AA mostly met, minor gaps), 4=Excellent (WCAG AA fully met, approaches AAA)

### 2. Performance

**Check for**:
- **Layout thrashing**: Reading/writing layout properties in loops
- **Expensive animations**: Animating layout properties (width, height, top, left) instead of transform/opacity
- **Missing optimization**: Images without lazy loading, unoptimized assets, missing will-change
- **Bundle size**: Unnecessary imports, unused dependencies
- **Render performance**: Unnecessary re-renders, missing memoization

**Score 0-4**: 0=Severe issues (layout thrash, unoptimized everything), 1=Major problems (no lazy loading, expensive animations), 2=Partial (some optimization, gaps remain), 3=Good (mostly optimized, minor improvements possible), 4=Excellent (fast, lean, well-optimized)

### 3. Theming

**Check for**:
- **Hard-coded colors**: Colors not using design tokens
- **Broken dark mode**: Missing dark mode variants, poor contrast in dark theme
- **Inconsistent tokens**: Using wrong tokens, mixing token types
- **Theme switching issues**: Values that don't update on theme change

**Score 0-4**: 0=No theming (hard-coded everything), 1=Minimal tokens (mostly hard-coded), 2=Partial (tokens exist but inconsistently used), 3=Good (tokens used, minor hard-coded values), 4=Excellent (full token system, dark mode works perfectly)

### 4. Responsive Design

**Check for**:
- **Fixed widths**: Hard-coded widths that break on mobile
- **Touch targets**: Interactive elements < 44x44px
- **Horizontal scroll**: Content overflow on narrow viewports
- **Text scaling**: Layouts that break when text size increases
- **Missing breakpoints**: No mobile/tablet variants

**Score 0-4**: 0=Desktop-only (breaks on mobile), 1=Major issues (some breakpoints, many failures), 2=Partial (works on mobile, rough edges), 3=Good (responsive, minor touch target or overflow issues), 4=Excellent (fluid, all viewports, proper touch targets)

### 5. Anti-Patterns (CRITICAL)

Check against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill. Look for AI slop tells (AI color palette, gradient text, glassmorphism, hero metrics, card grids, generic fonts) and general design anti-patterns (gray on color, nested cards, bounce easing, redundant copy).

**Score 0-4**: 0=AI slop gallery (5+ tells), 1=Heavy AI aesthetic (3-4 tells), 2=Some tells (1-2 noticeable), 3=Mostly clean (subtle issues only), 4=No AI tells (distinctive, intentional design)

## Generate Report

### Audit Health Score

| # | Dimension | Score | Key Finding |
|---|-----------|-------|-------------|
| 1 | Accessibility | ? | [most critical a11y issue or "--"] |
| 2 | Performance | ? | |
| 3 | Responsive Design | ? | |
| 4 | Theming | ? | |
| 5 | Anti-Patterns | ? | |
| **Total** | | **??/20** | **[Rating band]** |

**Rating bands**: 18-20 Excellent (minor polish), 14-17 Good (address weak dimensions), 10-13 Acceptable (significant work needed), 6-9 Poor (major overhaul), 0-5 Critical (fundamental issues)

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

### Executive Summary
- Audit Health Score: **??/20** ([rating band])
- Total issues found (count by severity: P0/P1/P2/P3)
- Top 3-5 critical issues
- Recommended next steps

### Detailed Findings by Severity

Tag every issue with **P0-P3 severity**:
- **P0 Blocking**: Prevents task completion — fix immediately
- **P1 Major**: Significant difficulty or WCAG AA violation — fix before release
- **P2 Minor**: Annoyance, workaround exists — fix in next pass
- **P3 Polish**: Nice-to-fix, no real user impact — fix if time permits

For each issue, document:
- **[P?] Issue name**
- **Location**: Component, file, line
- **Category**: Accessibility / Performance / Theming / Responsive / Anti-Pattern
- **Impact**: How it affects users
- **WCAG/Standard**: Which standard it violates (if applicable)
- **Recommendation**: How to fix it
- **Suggested command**: Which command to use (prefer: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive)

### Patterns & Systemic Issues

Identify recurring problems that indicate systemic gaps rather than one-off mistakes:
- "Hard-coded colors appear in 15+ components, should use design tokens"
- "Touch targets consistently too small (<44px) throughout mobile experience"

### Positive Findings

Note what's working well — good practices to maintain and replicate.

## Recommended Actions

List recommended commands in priority order (P0 first, then P1, then P2):

1. **[P?] `/command-name`** — Brief description (specific context from audit findings)
2. **[P?] `/command-name`** — Brief description (specific context)

**Rules**: Only recommend commands from: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive. Map findings to the most appropriate command. End with `/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 `/audit` after fixes to see your score improve.

**IMPORTANT**: Be thorough but actionable. Too many P3 issues creates noise. Focus on what actually matters.

**NEVER**:
- Report issues without explaining impact (why does this matter?)
- Provide generic recommendations (be specific and actionable)
- Skip positive findings (celebrate what works)
- Forget to prioritize (everything can't be P0)
- Report false positives without verification

Remember: You're a technical quality auditor. Document systematically, prioritize ruthlessly, cite specific code locations, and provide clear paths to improvement.


must-3b3bf92b-0

Invoke /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 /teach-impeccable first. Additionally gather: what the interface is trying to accomplish.

must-3b3bf92b-1

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.

must-3b3bf92b-2

- Is there visual competition between elements that should have different weights?

reference/cognitive-load.md

reference/cognitive-load.md

- **Run the 8-item cognitive load checklist** from the reference. Report failure count: 0–1 = low (good), 2–3 = moderate, 4+ = critical.

must-3b3bf92b-3

- Does it feel trustworthy, approachable, premium, playful — whatever it should feel?

- **Emotional valleys**: Check for onboarding frustration, error cliffs, feature discovery gaps, or anxiety spikes at high-stakes moments (payment, delete, commit)

must-3b3bf92b-4

- Are there hidden features that should be more visible?

- Error states: Are they helpful and non-blaming?

- Does error copy help users fix the problem?

reference/heuristics-scoring.md

reference/heuristics-scoring.md

| 5 | Error Prevention | ? | |

| 9 | Error Recovery | ? | |

reference/heuristics-scoring.md

reference/heuristics-scoring.md

reference/personas.md

reference/personas.md

AGENTS.md

AGENTS.md

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

must-3b3bf92b-5

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

must-3b3bf92b-6

- Don't soften criticism — developers need honest feedback to ship great design

must-3b3bf92b-7

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

must-3b3bf92b-8

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.

must-3b3bf92b-9

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.

must-3b3bf92b-10

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.

must-3b3bf92b-11

- Every question must reference specific findings from Phase 2 — never ask generic "who is your audience?" questions

must-3b3bf92b-12

- Each item's description should carry enough context that the command knows what to focus on

must-3b3bf92b-13

> You can ask me to run these one at a time, all at once, or in any order you prefer.

must-82c45ccf-0

must-82c45ccf-1

Run systematic **technical** quality checks and generate a comprehensive report. Don't fix issues — document them for other commands to address.

- **Missing ARIA**: Interactive elements without proper roles, labels, or states

- **Keyboard navigation**: Missing focus indicators, illogical tab order, keyboard traps

- **Semantic HTML**: Improper heading hierarchy, missing landmarks, divs instead of buttons

- **Alt text**: Missing or poor image descriptions

- **Form issues**: Inputs without labels, poor error messaging, missing required indicators

- **Missing optimization**: Images without lazy loading, unoptimized assets, missing will-change

- **Render performance**: Unnecessary re-renders, missing memoization

- **Broken dark mode**: Missing dark mode variants, poor contrast in dark theme

must-82c45ccf-2

- **Theme switching issues**: Values that don't update on theme change

- **Missing breakpoints**: No mobile/tablet variants

must-82c45ccf-3

Check against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill. Look for AI slop tells (AI color palette, gradient text, glassmorphism, hero metrics, card grids, generic fonts) and general design anti-patterns (gray on color, nested cards, bounce easing, redundant copy).

must-82c45ccf-4

- **Suggested command**: Which command to use (prefer: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive)

must-82c45ccf-5

- "Hard-coded colors appear in 15+ components, should use design tokens"

must-82c45ccf-6


**Clarifying frontend skills**

The user asked which frontend skills to load from the directory, expecting a format like "Skills: frontend-design, audit, critique." However, I see that we also have to mention the "caveman" skill due to the MUST DO requirement. Since the user requested three specific lines, I’ll make sure to phrase it correctly: listing chosen skills—potentially including caveman—while adhering to the request for "from this directory." It’s important to stay within the defined parameters!

**Determining skill order**

In the project, I understand that the instructions take priority. The user wants a concise response with three lines. I need to select the skills to load: frontend-design (must), audit (to address accessibility and performance), and critique (for UX).

I think the best order would be to load frontend-design first, followed by audit for technical checks, and finally critique for design-level feedback. This way, we ensure that each skill builds on the context provided by the previous one!

**Setting the skill order**

The algorithm in the critique's MANDATORY PREPARATION instructs me to invoke frontend-design first. It contains vital design principles and the Context Gathering Protocol. Following that, I must determine the next step. Based on the user's request for a UX review and to flag accessibility and performance issues, it seems best to prioritize critique next, followed by audit.

So, the optimal order would be frontend-design, critique, and then audit. I also need to remember to include caveman but still need to decide when to place it in the workflow!

**Incorporating caveman skill**

Caveman is a skill focused on brevity, but it must always be included as per requirements. The user asked me to choose frontend skills from a specific directory, but caveman isn't listed there. I think it's best to list the frontend skills while also mentioning caveman since it needs to be acknowledged.

I'll use the format requested by the user: Skills will specify the frontend skills, the Order will note the implicit loading of caveman, and the Why will explain it concisely. It’s crucial to stick to three exact lines!

**Crafting concise output**

I’m thinking through the correct response format. For skills, I'll list: "Skills: frontend-design, critique, audit, caveman." Even though caveman isn’t from the directory, it must be included due to the requirements. Next, for the order, I’ll specify "Order: frontend-design → critique → audit (caveman loaded first for brevity)."

Then, in the Why line, I’ll explain that frontend-design provides the necessary context, and if no design context exists, we should run /teach-impeccable. It’s important to keep everything concise while hitting all points!


---
name: teach-impeccable
description: One-time setup that gathers design context for your project and saves it to your AI config file. Run once to establish persistent design guidelines.
---

Gather design context for this project, then persist it for all future sessions.

## Step 1: Explore the Codebase

Before asking questions, thoroughly scan the project to discover what you can:

- **README and docs**: Project purpose, target audience, any stated goals
- **Package.json / config files**: Tech stack, dependencies, existing design libraries
- **Existing components**: Current design patterns, spacing, typography in use
- **Brand assets**: Logos, favicons, color values already defined
- **Design tokens / CSS variables**: Existing color palettes, font stacks, spacing scales
- **Any style guides or brand documentation**

Note what you've learned and what remains unclear.

## Step 2: Ask UX-Focused Questions

ask the user directly to clarify what you cannot infer. Focus only on what you couldn't infer from the codebase:

### Users & Purpose
- Who uses this? What's their context when using it?
- What job are they trying to get done?
- What emotions should the interface evoke? (confidence, delight, calm, urgency, etc.)

### Brand & Personality
- How would you describe the brand personality in 3 words?
- Any reference sites or apps that capture the right feel? What specifically about them?
- What should this explicitly NOT look like? Any anti-references?

### Aesthetic Preferences
- Any strong preferences for visual direction? (minimal, bold, elegant, playful, technical, organic, etc.)
- Light mode, dark mode, or both?
- Any colors that must be used or avoided?

### Accessibility & Inclusion
- Specific accessibility requirements? (WCAG level, known user needs)
- Considerations for reduced motion, color blindness, or other accommodations?

Skip questions where the answer is already clear from the codebase exploration.

## Step 3: Write Design Context

Synthesize your findings and the user's answers into a `## Design Context` section:

```markdown
## Design Context

### Users
[Who they are, their context, the job to be done]

### Brand Personality
[Voice, tone, 3-word personality, emotional goals]

### Aesthetic Direction
[Visual tone, references, anti-references, theme]

### Design Principles
[3-5 principles derived from the conversation that should guide all design decisions]
```

Write this section to `.impeccable.md` in the project root. If the file already exists, update the Design Context section in place.

Then ask the user directly to clarify what you cannot infer. whether they'd also like the Design Context appended to AGENTS.md. If yes, append or update the section there as well.

Confirm completion and summarize the key design principles that will now guide all future work.


must-3b3bf92b-0

Invoke /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 /teach-impeccable first. Additionally gather: what the interface is trying to accomplish.

must-3b3bf92b-1

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.

must-3b3bf92b-2

- Is there visual competition between elements that should have different weights?

reference/cognitive-load.md

reference/cognitive-load.md

- **Run the 8-item cognitive load checklist** from the reference. Report failure count: 0–1 = low (good), 2–3 = moderate, 4+ = critical.

must-3b3bf92b-3

- Does it feel trustworthy, approachable, premium, playful — whatever it should feel?

- **Emotional valleys**: Check for onboarding frustration, error cliffs, feature discovery gaps, or anxiety spikes at high-stakes moments (payment, delete, commit)

must-3b3bf92b-4

- Are there hidden features that should be more visible?

- Error states: Are they helpful and non-blaming?

- Does error copy help users fix the problem?

reference/heuristics-scoring.md

reference/heuristics-scoring.md

| 5 | Error Prevention | ? | |

| 9 | Error Recovery | ? | |

reference/heuristics-scoring.md

reference/heuristics-scoring.md

reference/personas.md

reference/personas.md

AGENTS.md

AGENTS.md

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

must-3b3bf92b-5

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

must-3b3bf92b-6

- Don't soften criticism — developers need honest feedback to ship great design

must-3b3bf92b-7

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

must-3b3bf92b-8

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.

must-3b3bf92b-9

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.

must-3b3bf92b-10

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.

must-3b3bf92b-11

- Every question must reference specific findings from Phase 2 — never ask generic "who is your audience?" questions

must-3b3bf92b-12

- Each item's description should carry enough context that the command knows what to focus on

must-3b3bf92b-13

> You can ask me to run these one at a time, all at once, or in any order you prefer.

must-82c45ccf-0

must-82c45ccf-1

Run systematic **technical** quality checks and generate a comprehensive report. Don't fix issues — document them for other commands to address.

- **Missing ARIA**: Interactive elements without proper roles, labels, or states

- **Keyboard navigation**: Missing focus indicators, illogical tab order, keyboard traps

- **Semantic HTML**: Improper heading hierarchy, missing landmarks, divs instead of buttons

- **Alt text**: Missing or poor image descriptions

- **Form issues**: Inputs without labels, poor error messaging, missing required indicators

- **Missing optimization**: Images without lazy loading, unoptimized assets, missing will-change

- **Render performance**: Unnecessary re-renders, missing memoization

- **Broken dark mode**: Missing dark mode variants, poor contrast in dark theme

must-82c45ccf-2

- **Theme switching issues**: Values that don't update on theme change

- **Missing breakpoints**: No mobile/tablet variants

must-82c45ccf-3

Check against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill. Look for AI slop tells (AI color palette, gradient text, glassmorphism, hero metrics, card grids, generic fonts) and general design anti-patterns (gray on color, nested cards, bounce easing, redundant copy).

must-82c45ccf-4

- **Suggested command**: Which command to use (prefer: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive)

must-82c45ccf-5

- "Hard-coded colors appear in 15+ components, should use design tokens"

must-82c45ccf-6

Package.js

Package.js

must-1e25bb0b-0

- What emotions should the interface evoke? (confidence, delight, calm, urgency, etc.)

must-1e25bb0b-1

- What should this explicitly NOT look like? Any anti-references?

must-1e25bb0b-2

- Any colors that must be used or avoided?

must-1e25bb0b-3

[3-5 principles derived from the conversation that should guide all design decisions]

.impeccable.md

.impeccable.md

AGENTS.md

AGENTS.md


**Preparing final answer**

I’m determining the order of skills: frontend-design, critique, audit, and caveman. The sequence goes: frontend-design first because it runs the Context Gathering Protocol and applies mandatory anti-pattern rules. Then critique to assess checkout UX, followed by audit to flag accessibility, performance, theming, and responsive issues. Finally, the caveman will ensure a concise output. Now I’ll make sure to format everything into exactly three lines!

Skills: caveman, frontend-design, critique, audit
Order: caveman → frontend-design → critique → audit
Why: caveman ensures ultra-concise output; frontend-design runs the Context Gathering Protocol and anti-pattern checks (mandatory); critique targets UX problems in the checkout flow; audit surfaces accessibility, performance, theming, and responsive implementation issues.