Frontend Design Workflow

Frontend design workflow

An agent handed a PRD starts writing markup, and a thousand design decisions get made implicitly, each at the moment of least information. The output is competent and anonymous. This skill moves those decisions in front of the code and grounds them in evidence. The blunt test at every stage: could this be any other product's site? If yes, you defaulted rather than decided — references/direction.md names the specific attractor states to check against.

Routing

| Situation | Go to | |---|---| | New project, or a PRD arrived | Phase 0, run the loop | | Redesign | Phase 0 with the current site as a competitor; skip Phase 3 if the stack is fixed | | "What stack should this be?" | references/architecture.md → The rendering question | | "Why does my site look generic?" | references/direction.md → The attractor states | | Direction agreed, ready to build | Phase 5, then assets/BUILD-KICKOFF.md | | Built, wants it checked | Phase 6, and scripts/verify.mjs |

Precedence

Higher wins: the user's explicit instruction → an existing codebase's conventions → this skill's defaults. If they want purple and brutalist, build purple and brutalist and spend your judgement on doing it well. Say once what you'd have chosen and why, then commit.

Working style

Decide and disclose rather than asking. Gate on the user only for irreversible actions, facts you cannot obtain, and the single direction question in Phase 2. If the user is absent, make the call, state it in the deliverable, and continue.

---

Phase 0 — Frame the brief

Goal: one page that every later decision is filtered through. Writing it before looking at any reference is what prevents design fixation — the documented effect where exposure to examples makes you unconsciously reproduce them, flaws included.

Read what exists first: PRD, spec, deck, current site, brand assets, connected Drive or Notion docs. Then fill assets/BRIEF.md — product, audience, primary task, trust posture (does this category convert on excitement or credibility?), interaction budget tier, constraints, what success looks like, what is out of scope.

Exit: docs/BRIEF.md written; you can state product, user, task and budget tier without hedging.

Phase 1 — Research

Goal: a validated reference pool and a problem model. Full method in references/discovery.md.

Three passes in order:

1. Direct competitors as constraints. Name 5–8 and **propose the list back to the user, asking

whether any major one is missing or should be dropped** — they know their market and it costs them ten seconds. Extract the conventions you must not break and the category's visual default. Then set the list aside: near-field examples maximise fixation and minimise novelty.

1. Adjacent-niche donors. 2–3 domains with an isomorphic user task, ideally higher-stakes,

older or under more regulatory pressure. Fintech studies aviation and insurance; a marketplace studies hotel booking; any conversion flow studies e-commerce checkout. Write the structural map explicitly — their entity → ours, their constraint → ours. Anything that doesn't map is surface, and copying surface is the fixation failure. This is the uncommon step and the highest-leverage one.

1. Craft references, validated rather than collected. Search results for design inspiration are

dominated by affiliate listicles, so references/discovery.md gives a 3-of-6 evidence test. Apply it before a reference earns a place, and sort survivors into benchmark versus visual reference only.

If the product or its competitors have users, mine reviews and carry the result forward: competitor 2★–3★ reviews are unmet demand in the user's own words. Rank themes by severity × frequency, then convert the top themes into named feature or content recommendations that land in assets/DIRECTION.md and become routes or sections in Phase 3. Research that stops at findings was wasted.

Exit: 8–12 validated references with signature move / worth stealing / over-engineered here; a named pole you are rejecting; ranked review themes converted to recommendations.

Phase 2 — Direction

Goal: one proposal the user can accept in thirty seconds. Not five options — they came to you for judgement.

Fill assets/DIRECTION.md: references studied, donors and their structural maps, conventions you won't break, the pole you're rejecting, the DNA blend as a ratio, the art direction (one signature move plus the supporting system — light direction, background layers, grain, gradient role, image treatment rule), the token table, themes shipped, and the interaction budget.

If the user stated a style preference, honour it, and add one paragraph of evidence about what the category's leaders actually do — so they're choosing to differ rather than not knowing. Detail and the anti-pattern list: references/direction.md.

Close with one question, usually mood, because that is the genuinely subjective axis. Colour, type scale and easing are yours to decide and defend.

Then critique the proposal before building: work the brief a second time as if fresh. Landing on an attractor state means you defaulted.

Exit: docs/DIRECTION.md written; direction agreed, or stated and proceeding.

Phase 3 — Architecture, then stack

Goal: the page inventory before the framework. Choosing a stack first is how projects discover in week three that they need server rendering and rebuild. Fill assets/ARCHITECTURE.md.

Page inventory from competitor research, user goals and the review-derived recommendations: every route, its job, its primary action, content source, whether it is public, and its indexation rule. Include the ones that get forgotten and later force rework — legal, analytics and consent, locale routing, auth and onboarding screens, empty and first-run states.

Content model next: the shape of the data behind those routes, in one module, so nobody hardcodes a string.

Then the stack. The deciding question: will any URL be read by a machine that does not run JavaScript? Social unfurlers and AI crawlers read raw HTML only. If yes for even one URL, the initial HTML must contain the content — a rendering decision that is free on day 0 and expensive on day 200. references/architecture.md has the ten-signal score and the framework table; two signals rule out a client-only SPA. Record the decision and its signals in the README.

Also settle here, because all three are architecture rather than polish: metadata and keyword plan per route (references/seo.md), which quality gates are in scope for v1 (references/quality-gates.md), and responsive strategy — how the signature move degrades on small screens.

Exit: docs/ARCHITECTURE.md written with page inventory, content model, stack decision record, metadata plan and scoped quality gates.

Phase 4 — Design system

Goal: tokens locked before the first component, in three layers — primitive → semantic → component — where components reference semantic tokens only. Read references/design-system.md.

Cover colour (one accent), type (two families, fluid sizing, negative tracking on display sizes), spacing, and theming from the start: light, dark and system are baseline expectation, and retrofitting means touching every component. Include the forced-colors and high-contrast cases.

Consistency is what reads as designed, and it is not uniformity. Contrasting shape decisions are fine — a pill CTA beside hard-cornered cards reads as deliberate — provided the system underneath holds: one stroke weight, one shadow light source, one surface ramp, one rule for the accent.

Exit: changing the accent and the two ground colours reskins the site with no other edit; every theme passes contrast.

Phase 5 — Build

Fill assets/BUILD-KICKOFF.md with the decisions from Phases 0–4 and hand off. If the environment has specialist build skills available — a frontend or design-system skill, a UI/UX or accessibility skill — invoke them now with the kickoff content as their brief, rather than restating the work here. This skill's job ends where their expertise begins.

Build order: tokens → layout shell → content model → routes → components → motion → metadata. Finish one route completely before starting the next; a half-built system repeated eight times is harder to fix than one route done properly and copied.

Motion vocabulary, timings and failure modes: references/motion.md. Accessibility, error and empty states, state management, types, security, performance and testing: references/quality-gates.md. Both are load-bearing during this phase, not optional reading.

Everything not scoped for v1 becomes tracked work rather than silent omission — accessibility, SEO, security, error boundaries, four states, state management, types, performance budgets, tests. Run scripts/create-issues.sh against assets/backlog.md, or, where no issue tracker exists, split the backlog by area and brief one subagent per area with the relevant reference file plus the acceptance criteria. Skipping is a decision the user makes; unmentioned is not.

Exit: the scoped routes build and render; the deferred backlog exists as issues or briefed work.

Phase 6 — Verify

Screenshot it and read the images. A passing build proves syntax compiled, not that a fixed element landed on screen or that a reveal ever fired.

Run scripts/verify.mjs, then the checklist in references/verification.md, which orders defects by how often they actually occur. Two things govern this loop: you are the worst reviewer of your own output, so look cold or hand the images to a subagent; and it terminates — fix the real defects, re-check what you changed, and stop.

Do not ship while any of these holds: a console page error, unreadable text at any breakpoint, a route that 404s, keyboard focus that disappears, contrast below threshold in any theme, or motion that ignores prefers-reduced-motion.

Exit: the stop-ship list is clear and the pre-ship checklist passes.

---

Reference files

Mutually exclusive by phase — read the one you need.

| File | Phase | |---|---| | references/discovery.md | 1 — competitors, adjacent niches, reference validation, review mining | | references/direction.md | 2 — attractor states, art direction, imagery, interaction budget | | references/architecture.md | 3 — page inventory, content model, rendering and stack decision | | references/seo.md | 3 and 5 — metadata, OG images, sitemap, JSON-LD, Core Web Vitals | | references/design-system.md | 4 — tokens, theming, type, depth | | references/motion.md | 5 — primitives, timings, failure modes | | references/quality-gates.md | 5 — accessibility, four states, state, types, security, testing | | references/verification.md | 6 — screenshot loop and pre-ship checklist |

Assets and scripts

| Path | Purpose | |---|---| | assets/BRIEF.md | Phase 0 → docs/BRIEF.md | | assets/DIRECTION.md | Phase 2 → docs/DIRECTION.md | | assets/ARCHITECTURE.md | Phase 3 → docs/ARCHITECTURE.md | | assets/BUILD-KICKOFF.md | Phase 5 — the prompt that starts the building session | | assets/backlog.md | The quality backlog with acceptance criteria | | scripts/create-issues.sh | Creates the backlog via gh; idempotent, --dry-run supported | | scripts/verify.mjs | Playwright sweep: routes × breakpoints × themes, reduced-motion, overflow, console errors |

The three docs/ files are the deliverable a user can start from, and they are what a building session in another tool needs in order to produce the same result.

Framework note

Phase 3 can legitimately choose Astro, SvelteKit, Nuxt, Remix or a plain SPA. Code examples in seo.md, quality-gates.md, design-system.md and several backlog items use Next.js App Router conventions because it is the most common choice. The principles port; the file names do not. When another framework is chosen, translate the mechanism and keep the requirement.

Source & license

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

• Author: AviOfLagos
• Source: AviOfLagos/frontend-design-workflow
• License: MIT

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