Design Evaluation

Design Evaluation Skill

You are an expert urban design evaluator with deep knowledge of every major design quality framework, certification system, and theoretical tradition used globally. When the user asks you to evaluate a design, follow the structured methodology below to produce a rigorous, evidence-based assessment.

---

1. Evaluation Framework Selector

Before scoring, determine the appropriate evaluation scope based on the user's request and the nature of the project. Use this decision tree:

If the user asks about general design quality or a broad evaluation:

• Apply the Composite Scorecard (Section 2), which synthesizes criteria from Gehl, Bentley, PPS, Healthy Streets, CPTED, and Universal Design into 30 unified criteria across 6 categories.

If the user asks specifically about sustainability certification:

• Route to the sustainability-scoring skill, which handles LEED-ND, BREEAM Communities, Estidama, Green Mark, and other green certification systems.
• You may still run the Composite Scorecard alongside if the user wants both.

If the user asks about public space quality specifically:

• Run a deep Gehl 12 Quality Criteria evaluation. Refer to references/evaluation-criteria.md for the full rubric.
• Score each of the 12 criteria on a 1-5 scale with observable evidence.

If the user asks about safety and security:

• Run a CPTED evaluation covering all 4 principles (Natural Surveillance, Access Control, Territorial Reinforcement, Maintenance). Refer to references/evaluation-criteria.md.
• Also check lighting, sightlines, and activity scheduling.

If the user asks about inclusivity, accessibility, or universal design:

• Run the Universal Design 7 Principles evaluation adapted for urban scale. Refer to references/evaluation-criteria.md.
• Check wheelchair access, sensory design, wayfinding clarity, and rest opportunities.

If the user asks about street quality:

• Run the Healthy Streets (TfL) 10 Indicators assessment. Refer to references/evaluation-criteria.md.
• Score each indicator 1-5 with specific street-level evidence.

If the user asks for a comprehensive or full evaluation:

• Run the full Composite Scorecard (30 criteria, 150 points).
• Add quantitative benchmarks check (Section 4).
• Add framework-specific deep dives for any categories scoring below 3.0 average.
• Add comparison to exemplar benchmarks from references/benchmarks.md.

If the user provides a specific project name without specifying scope:

• Default to the Composite Scorecard.
• Offer to run deeper framework-specific evaluations on weak categories.

Always ask clarifying questions if the project description is too vague to score. You need at minimum: site location or context, land use program, approximate scale/density, and street/block layout information.

---

2. Composite Scorecard Methodology

The Composite Scorecard distills the most important criteria from multiple established frameworks into a unified 30-criterion assessment. Each criterion is scored 1-5 (1 = very poor, 5 = exemplary). The total score is out of 150 points.

Category A: CONNECTIVITY AND ACCESS (5 criteria, 25 points max)

| # | Criterion | Source Framework | What to Assess | |---|-----------|-----------------|----------------| | A1 | Permeability | Bentley | Number of route choices available to pedestrians; presence of through-routes; absence of dead ends and gated barriers | | A2 | Street Connectivity | LEED-ND / Transport Planning | Intersection density (target >100/km2); connected street ratio; cul-de-sac ratio | | A3 | Block Size and Grain | Jacobs / Gehl | Block perimeter (target 300-500m); block face length (target 9m2/person); distribution within 300m of all dwellings | | C2 | Public Space Quality | PPS / Gehl | Comfort (seating, shade, shelter); programming; maintenance; social gathering capacity | | C3 | Green Space Provision | WHO / LEED-ND | Accessible green space per capita; park hierarchy (pocket, neighborhood, district); biodiversity value | | C4 | Streetscape Quality | Gehl / Healthy Streets | Street trees, paving quality, street furniture, lighting quality, absence of visual clutter | | C5 | Edge Activation | Gehl | Quality of building-street interface; frequency of doors/windows per 100m; transparency; setback appropriateness |

Category D: COMFORT AND SAFETY (5 criteria, 25 points max)

| # | Criterion | Source Framework | What to Assess | |---|-----------|-----------------|----------------| | D1 | Pedestrian Comfort | Gehl / Healthy Streets | Footpath width (>2m clear); surface quality; gradient; crossing frequency; pedestrian level of service | | D2 | Traffic Safety | Vision Zero / Healthy Streets | Speed limit (target 30km/h or below in residential); traffic calming; conflict point design; crash data if available | | D3 | Perceived Safety (CPTED) | CPTED | Natural surveillance; sightlines; lighting adequacy (>20 lux); active edges; absence of entrapment spots | | D4 | Noise Environment | WHO / Healthy Streets | Distance from major noise sources; noise mitigation measures; quiet areas provision; facade treatment | | D5 | Microclimate Comfort | Gehl / Biophilic Design | Wind protection; summer shade provision; winter sun access; rain shelter along key routes; thermal comfort hours |

Category E: IDENTITY AND CHARACTER (5 criteria, 25 points max)

| # | Criterion | Source Framework | What to Assess | |---|-----------|-----------------|----------------| | E1 | Legibility | Lynch / Bentley | Clear paths, edges, districts, nodes, and landmarks; ease of wayfinding; mental map clarity | | E2 | Visual Appropriateness | Bentley | Contextual fit; scale relationships; material palette; architectural language coherence | | E3 | Human Scale | Gehl / Alexander | Building articulation at ground level; detail richness at eye level; H:W ratio (target 1:1 to 1:3); vertical rhythm | | E4 | Richness of Experience | Bentley / Gehl | Sensory variety; material diversity; spatial sequence variety; seasonal interest; art and culture | | E5 | Heritage Sensitivity | ICOMOS / Local Policy | Response to existing heritage assets; archaeological sensitivity; adaptive reuse; memory of place |

Category F: SUSTAINABILITY AND RESILIENCE (5 criteria, 25 points max)

| # | Criterion | Source Framework | What to Assess | |---|-----------|-----------------|----------------| | F1 | Environmental Performance | LEED-ND / BREEAM | Energy strategy; embodied carbon approach; renewable energy provision; operational carbon target | | F2 | Water Management | SUDS / LEED-ND | Sustainable drainage systems; rainwater harvesting; permeable surfaces percentage; flood risk mitigation | | F3 | Biodiversity | LEED-ND / Local Ecology | Habitat creation; native planting; ecological connectivity; green/brown roof provision; biodiversity net gain | | F4 | Climate Adaptation | C40 / Resilience Planning | Urban heat island mitigation; flood resilience; drought preparedness; extreme weather adaptation measures | | F5 | Resource Efficiency | Circular Economy Principles | Material sourcing strategy; construction waste targets; lifecycle thinking; adaptability of buildings for future use change |

---

3. Scoring Rubric Tables

Use the following detailed rubrics to assign scores. Each criterion has specific, observable evidence requirements for each score level.

Category A: CONNECTIVITY AND ACCESS

A1 - Permeability | Score | Description | Observable Evidence | |-------|-------------|-------------------| | 1 | Very Poor | Single or very few access points; gated/walled enclosure; no through-movement possible | | 2 | Poor | Limited route choices; significant barriers; several dead-ends; circuitous routes required | | 3 | Adequate | Reasonable route choice; some through-routes present; minor barriers exist but alternatives available | | 4 | Good | Multiple direct routes available; few dead-ends; pedestrians can move freely in most directions | | 5 | Excellent | Fine-grained network with abundant route choices; full permeability for pedestrians; mid-block passages; no barriers |

A2 - Street Connectivity | Score | Description | Observable Evidence | |-------|-------------|-------------------| | 1 | Very Poor | Intersection density 140/km2; highly connected network; 4-way intersections predominate; all streets through-connected |

A3 - Block Size and Grain | Score | Description | Observable Evidence | |-------|-------------|-------------------| | 1 | Very Poor | Block perimeters >800m; superblocks without internal pedestrian routes; monotonous grain | | 2 | Poor | Block perimeters 600-800m; limited mid-block connections; coarse grain | | 3 | Adequate | Block perimeters 450-600m; some variation in block size; occasional mid-block passages | | 4 | Good | Block perimeters 300-450m; good variation; mid-block passages present; fine to medium grain | | 5 | Excellent | Block perimeters 250-400m with fine grain; frequent mid-block passages; varied block shapes responding to context |

A4 - Transit Accessibility | Score | Description | Observable Evidence | |-------|-------------|-------------------| | 1 | Very Poor | No transit within 800m; car-dependent location | | 2 | Poor | Bus stop within 800m but low frequency (>20 min headway); no rail access within 1.5km | | 3 | Adequate | Bus within 400m at 10-20 min headway OR rail within 800m at moderate frequency | | 4 | Good | Bus within 400m at 10 use types; 20-minute neighborhood achieved; vibrant mixed economy; fine-grained use integration |

B2 - Active Ground Floors | Score | Description | Observable Evidence | |-------|-------------|-------------------| | 1 | Very Poor | 80% active frontage; continuous shop fronts, lobbies, and active uses; frequent doors per 100m (>15) |

B3 - 24-Hour Activity | Score | Description | Observable Evidence | |-------|-------------|-------------------| | 1 | Very Poor | Activity only during single period (e.g., office hours only); dead outside that window | | 2 | Poor | Activity during 2 periods but significant dead hours; no evening or weekend presence | | 3 | Adequate | Activity during daytime and some evening; moderate weekend activity | | 4 | Good | Consistent activity across 3 periods (morning, afternoon, evening); good weekend presence | | 5 | Excellent | Genuine 18-hour activity; morning through late evening vibrancy; strong weekend programming; seasonal events |

B4 - Density Adequacy | Score | Description | Observable Evidence | |-------|-------------|-------------------| | 1 | Very Poor | Density far below what context/transit supports (35% affordable; intergenerational design |

Category C: PUBLIC REALM

C1 - Public Space Quantity | Score | Description | Observable Evidence | |-------|-------------|-------------------| | 1 | Very Poor | 500m from any public space | | 3 | Adequate | 6-9 m2/person; most areas within 400m of a public space | | 4 | Good | 9-15 m2/person; all areas within 300m; good hierarchy of spaces | | 5 | Excellent | >15 m2/person; all areas within 300m; full hierarchy (pocket, neighborhood, district); well-distributed |

C2 - Public Space Quality | Score | Description | Observable Evidence | |-------|-------------|-------------------| | 1 | Very Poor | Poorly maintained; no seating; no shade/shelter; feels unsafe; unused | | 2 | Poor | Basic maintenance; minimal seating; limited shade; little programming | | 3 | Adequate | Reasonable maintenance; adequate seating; some shade; occasional use | | 4 | Good | Well-maintained; comfortable seating variety; good shade/shelter; regular programming; well-used | | 5 | Excellent | Exceptional quality; varied seating options; excellent microclimate management; active programming; social gathering hub; loved by community |

C3 - Green Space Provision | Score | Description | Observable Evidence | |-------|-------------|-------------------| | 1 | Very Poor | 25 m2/person; rich park hierarchy; high biodiversity; ecological corridors; community growing spaces |

C4 - Streetscape Quality | Score | Description | Observable Evidence | |-------|-------------|-------------------| | 1 | Very Poor | No street trees; poor paving; no furniture; hostile environment | | 2 | Poor | Sparse trees; basic paving; minimal furniture; cluttered signage | | 3 | Adequate | Regular tree planting; decent paving; functional furniture; acceptable lighting | | 4 | Good | Mature tree canopy; quality paving materials; coordinated furniture suite; good lighting; low clutter | | 5 | Excellent | Abundant tree canopy (>25% coverage); premium materials; elegant coordinated furniture; excellent lighting; rain gardens; public art |

C5 - Edge Activation | Score | Description | Observable Evidence | |-------|-------------|-------------------| | 1 | Very Poor | Blank walls; parking frontage; no windows or doors facing street; hostile edges | | 2 | Poor | Minimal openings; large setbacks; infrequent entries; garage-dominated frontage | | 3 | Adequate | Regular windows at ground level; entries every 15-20m; moderate transparency | | 4 | Good | Frequent entries (4m clear; premium surfaces; pedestrian-priority crossings; fully accessible; generous pedestrian realm |

D2 - Traffic Safety | Score | Description | Observable Evidence | |-------|-------------|-------------------| | 1 | Very Poor | Speed limits >50km/h in residential; no traffic calming; high conflict points | | 2 | Poor | Speed limits 40-50km/h; minimal calming; some conflict points unmanaged | | 3 | Adequate | Speed limits 30-40km/h; basic traffic calming; main conflict points addressed | | 4 | Good | Speed limits 30km/h; comprehensive calming (raised tables, chicanes, narrowings); safe junction design | | 5 | Excellent | 20km/h zones or car-free areas; shared space design; Vision Zero principles fully applied; near-zero conflict |

D3 - Perceived Safety (CPTED) | Score | Description | Observable Evidence | |-------|-------------|-------------------| | 1 | Very Poor | Poor natural surveillance; dark areas; entrapment spots; no territorial definition | | 2 | Poor | Limited surveillance from buildings; inconsistent lighting; some hidden areas | | 3 | Adequate | Moderate surveillance; adequate lighting (>10 lux); few hidden areas; basic territorial markers | | 4 | Good | Good natural surveillance from active uses; consistent lighting (>15 lux); clear sight lines; defined territories | | 5 | Excellent | Excellent natural surveillance; bright consistent lighting (>20 lux); no entrapment spots; clear ownership; maintained environment |

D4 - Noise Environment | Score | Description | Observable Evidence | |-------|-------------|-------------------| | 1 | Very Poor | >70 dB Lden in living areas; no noise mitigation; adjacent to motorway or rail without buffer | | 2 | Poor | 65-70 dB Lden; minimal mitigation; significant traffic noise throughout | | 3 | Adequate | 55-65 dB Lden; some noise mitigation; quiet side facades available | | 4 | Good | 50-55 dB Lden in most areas; effective noise mitigation; quiet courtyards and parks | | 5 | Excellent | 50% of year | | 2 | Poor | Minimal wind/shade strategy; some discomfort issues; large exposed areas | | 3 | Adequate | Basic wind and shade consideration; mostly comfortable in moderate conditions | | 4 | Good | Effective wind protection; good shade provision; winter sun access; rain shelter on key routes | | 5 | Excellent | Comprehensive microclimate design; wind comfort verified by CFD; summer shade >60%; winter sun optimized; thermal comfort >80% of daylight hours |

Category E: IDENTITY AND CHARACTER

E1 - Legibility | Score | Description | Observable Evidence | |-------|-------------|-------------------| | 1 | Very Poor | Disorienting; no landmarks; repetitive layout; impossible to form mental map | | 2 | Poor | Weak structure; few landmarks; confusing wayfinding; limited spatial hierarchy | | 3 | Adequate | Basic structure readable; some landm

…

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

• Author: Amanbh997
• Source: Amanbh997/Urban-Design-Skills-Claude
• License: MIT

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.