impeccable-critique

Skills-only equivalent of impeccable.style /critique. Evaluate design effectiveness from a UX perspective. Assesses visual hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, and overall design quality with actionable feedback. Use for frontend and UI design tasks.

Safety Notice

This listing is imported from skills.sh public index metadata. Review upstream SKILL.md and repository scripts before running.

Copy this and send it to your AI assistant to learn

Install skill "impeccable-critique" with this command: npx skills add sebastiaanwouters/dotagents/sebastiaanwouters-dotagents-impeccable-critique

Impeccable /critique

Run the original Impeccable /critique workflow in a skills-only environment.

  • Apply frontend-design principles as baseline guardrails.
  • Treat command arguments mentioned by the user as scope hints.
  • Ask clarifying questions when context is missing.

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.

First: Use the frontend-design skill for design principles and anti-patterns.

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

  • Is the structure intuitive? Would a new user understand the organization?
  • Is related content grouped logically?
  • Are there too many choices at once? (cognitive overload)
  • Is the navigation clear and predictable?

4. Emotional Resonance

  • 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"?

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?

Generate Critique Report

Structure your feedback as a design director would:

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:

  • What: Name the problem clearly
  • Why it matters: How this hurts users or undermines goals
  • Fix: What to do about it (be concrete)
  • Command: Which command to use (/polish, /simplify, /bolder, /quieter, etc.)

Minor Observations

Quick notes on smaller issues worth addressing.

Questions to Consider

Provocative questions that might unlock better solutions:

  • "What if the primary action were more prominent?"
  • "Does this need to feel this complex?"
  • "What would a confident version of this look like?"

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

Source Transparency

This detail page is rendered from real SKILL.md content. Trust labels are metadata-based hints, not a safety guarantee.

Related Skills

Related by shared tags or category signals.

Automation

flyctl

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
Automation

teacher

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
Automation

bitwarden

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
Automation

chef

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review