# Design Review

> Reviews UI/UX designs, wireframes, and design systems for usability, accessibility, consistency, and implementation feasibility. Use when reviewing design specs or when the user mentions design review, UX review, or design feedback.

- **Type:** Skill
- **Install:** `agentstack add skill-tranhieutt-software-development-department-design-review`
- **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior
- **Seller:** [tranhieutt](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/tranhieutt)
- **Installs:** 0
- **Category:** [Agent Skills](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/agent-skills)
- **Latest version:** 0.1.0
- **License:** MIT
- **Upstream author:** [tranhieutt](https://github.com/tranhieutt)
- **Source:** https://github.com/tranhieutt/software_development_department/tree/main/.claude/skills/design-review

## Install

```sh
agentstack add skill-tranhieutt-software-development-department-design-review
```

Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent.

## About

When this skill is invoked:

1. **Read the target design document** in full.

2. **Read the master CLAUDE.md** to understand project context and standards.

3. **Read related design documents** referenced or implied by the target doc
   (check `design/docs/` for related systems).

4. **Evaluate against the Design Document Standard checklist**:
   - [ ] Has Overview section (one-paragraph summary)
   - [ ] Has User Fantasy section (intended feeling)
   - [ ] Has Detailed Rules section (unambiguous mechanics)
   - [ ] Has Formulas section (all math defined with variables)
   - [ ] Has Edge Cases section (unusual situations handled)
   - [ ] Has Dependencies section (other systems listed)
   - [ ] Has Tuning Knobs section (configurable values identified)
   - [ ] Has Acceptance Criteria section (testable success conditions)

5. **Check for internal consistency**:
   - Do the formulas produce values that match the described behavior?
   - Do edge cases contradict the main rules?
   - Are dependencies bidirectional (does the other system know about this one)?

6. **Check for implementability**:
   - Are the rules precise enough for a programmer to implement without guessing?
   - Are there any "hand-wave" sections where details are missing?
   - Are performance implications considered?

7. **Check for cross-system consistency**:
   - Does this conflict with any existing mechanic?
   - Does this create unintended interactions with other systems?
   - Is this consistent with the product's established tone and pillars?

8. **Output the review** in this format:

```
## Design Review: [Document Title]

### Completeness: [X/8 sections present]
[List missing sections]

### Consistency Issues
[List any internal or cross-system contradictions]

### Implementability Concerns
[List any vague or unimplementable sections]

### Balance Concerns
[List any obvious balance risks]

### Recommendations
[Prioritized list of improvements]

### Verdict: [APPROVED / NEEDS REVISION / MAJOR REVISION NEEDED]
```

9. **Contextual next step recommendations**:
   - If the document being reviewed is `product-concept.md` or `product-pillars.md`:
     - Check if `design/docs/systems-index.md` exists
     - If it does NOT exist, add to Recommendations:
       > "This concept is ready for systems decomposition. Run `/map-systems`
       > to break it down into individual systems with dependencies and priorities,
       > then write per-system PRDs."
   - If the document is an individual system PRD:
     - Check if the systems index references this system
     - If verdict is APPROVED: suggest "Update the systems index status for
       this system to 'Approved'."
     - If verdict is NEEDS REVISION or MAJOR REVISION NEEDED: suggest "Update
       the systems index status for this system to 'In Review'."
     - Note: This skill is read-only. The user (or `/design-system`) must
       perform the actual status update in the systems index.

## Protocol

- **Question**: Auto-starts from argument (path to design doc)
- **Options**: Skip — single review path
- **Decision**: Skip — verdict is advisory
- **Draft**: Full review shown in conversation only
- **Approval**: Skip — read-only; this skill never writes files

## Output

Deliver exactly:

- **Completeness score** (X/8 required sections present)
- **Consistency issues** — contradictions or undefined terms (or "None")
- **Implementability concerns** — sections too vague to build from (or "None")
- **Verdict**: `APPROVED` / `NEEDS REVISION` / `MAJOR REVISION NEEDED`
- **Next skill** — one recommended follow-up (e.g., `/map-systems`, update systems index)

## Source & license

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

- **Author:** [tranhieutt](https://github.com/tranhieutt)
- **Source:** [tranhieutt/software_development_department](https://github.com/tranhieutt/software_development_department)
- **License:** MIT

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

## Pricing

- **Free** — Free

## Security capabilities

Automated source analysis of v0.1.0 — what this tool can access:

- **Network access:** no
- **Filesystem access:** no
- **Shell / process execution:** no
- **Environment & secrets:** no
- **Dynamic code execution:** no

*"Yes" means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it is unsafe.*


## Versions

- **0.1.0** — security scan: passed — Imported from the upstream source.

## Links

- Listing page: https://agentstack.voostack.com/l/skill-tranhieutt-software-development-department-design-review
- Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/tranhieutt
- Browse the marketplace: https://agentstack.voostack.com/browse

---
Listed on AgentStack — the marketplace for AI agent skills and MCP servers. Every listing is security-reviewed. Creators keep 70%.