$npx -y skills add getpaperclipai/paperclip --skill design-critiqueGive a structured product design critique — user job clarity, hierarchy, affordance, error states, accessibility, and consistency — focused on what to change, in what order, and why.
| 1 | # Product Design Critique |
| 2 | |
| 3 | A structured critique pass for a screen, flow, or component. The output is a prioritized list of changes a designer or engineer can act on — not adjectives. Critique is not redesign; recommend, do not rebuild. |
| 4 | |
| 5 | ## When to use |
| 6 | |
| 7 | - A designer or engineer asks for feedback on a screen, mock, or live UI. |
| 8 | - A feature is shipping and someone wants a final UX read. |
| 9 | - A flow is suspected of causing user drop-off and you want a pre-research read before instrumentation. |
| 10 | |
| 11 | ## When not to use |
| 12 | |
| 13 | - The user wants a redesign. That is a design project, not a critique. |
| 14 | - The work is so early that no concrete artifact exists. Sketch with them instead of critiquing air. |
| 15 | - You have no context on the user job. Ask for it first; design critique without user context devolves into taste. |
| 16 | |
| 17 | ## Pre-critique context |
| 18 | |
| 19 | Before opening a screen, get: |
| 20 | |
| 21 | - **Who is the user.** Specific role and competence, not "users". |
| 22 | - **What job they are doing on this screen.** One sentence. |
| 23 | - **What success looks like.** What the user can do after this screen that they could not before. |
| 24 | - **Where this screen sits in the larger flow.** What precedes and follows. |
| 25 | |
| 26 | If any of these is missing, ask. Critique without these is opinion. |
| 27 | |
| 28 | ## The pass (in order) |
| 29 | |
| 30 | 1. **Clarity of the user job.** |
| 31 | - Within 3 seconds of opening, is it obvious what this screen is for? |
| 32 | - Does the primary action match the user's actual job, or a designer's preferred path? |
| 33 | |
| 34 | 2. **Visual hierarchy.** |
| 35 | - The most important thing on the screen should be the most prominent (size, weight, position, color). |
| 36 | - Secondary actions should look secondary. Tertiary should be findable but not loud. |
| 37 | - Headings should chunk content into the right groups for the task. |
| 38 | |
| 39 | 3. **Affordance and signifiers.** |
| 40 | - Clickable things look clickable. |
| 41 | - Disabled things look disabled and explain why on hover/focus. |
| 42 | - Drag, scroll, or swipe interactions are discoverable, not hidden. |
| 43 | |
| 44 | 4. **States.** |
| 45 | - Empty state (no data) is designed, not a blank rectangle. |
| 46 | - Loading state communicates progress, not just spins. |
| 47 | - Error states say what went wrong and what to do next, in the user's words. |
| 48 | - Success state confirms without celebrating banal actions. |
| 49 | |
| 50 | 5. **Inputs and forms.** |
| 51 | - Labels visible, not just placeholders. |
| 52 | - Validation runs at the right time (on blur, not on every keystroke unless the user is in a known-format field). |
| 53 | - Required fields marked. |
| 54 | - Field order matches the user's mental order, not the database order. |
| 55 | |
| 56 | 6. **Accessibility.** |
| 57 | - Sufficient color contrast (WCAG AA at minimum; AAA where reasonable). |
| 58 | - Focus order is logical for keyboard navigation. |
| 59 | - Interactive elements are reachable without a mouse. |
| 60 | - Critical information is not color-only (icons, text, position back it up). |
| 61 | - Touch targets at least 44×44 px on mobile. |
| 62 | |
| 63 | 7. **Consistency.** |
| 64 | - Tokens, components, and patterns match the rest of the product. |
| 65 | - "Borrowed" patterns from other products are intentional, not accidental drift. |
| 66 | |
| 67 | 8. **Copy.** |
| 68 | - Buttons are verbs that name the outcome ("Save changes" beats "Submit"). |
| 69 | - Microcopy explains, does not decorate. |
| 70 | - Tone matches the product voice. |
| 71 | |
| 72 | 9. **Edge cases.** |
| 73 | - Long content (long names, many items, RTL languages). |
| 74 | - Tiny content (one item, zero items). |
| 75 | - Slow network and offline behavior. |
| 76 | - Permissions denied. |
| 77 | |
| 78 | ## Output format |
| 79 | |
| 80 | Group findings by severity, then by category. Each finding is one issue and one suggested fix. |
| 81 | |
| 82 | ```md |
| 83 | ## Design critique: <screen name> |
| 84 | |
| 85 | ### Must-fix (blocks ship) |
| 86 | - **<category>:** <one-line issue>. **Try:** <one-line suggestion>. |
| 87 | |
| 88 | ### Should-fix (before broader rollout) |
| 89 | - **<category>:** <one-line issue>. **Try:** <one-line suggestion>. |
| 90 | |
| 91 | ### Nice-to-fix (when there's room) |
| 92 | - **<category>:** <one-line issue>. **Try:** <one-line suggestion>. |
| 93 | |
| 94 | ### Strengths to keep |
| 95 | - <one-line thing the design got right> |
| 96 | ``` |
| 97 | |
| 98 | Always include the "strengths to keep" section. It is not flattery — it is signal to the designer about what not to change in the next round. |
| 99 | |
| 100 | ## Anti-patterns |
| 101 | |
| 102 | - "I would do it differently" without saying what or why. That is preference, not critique. |
| 103 | - Long critiques that bury must-fix items under nice-to-haves. |
| 104 | - Suggesting net-new features under the guise of a critique. |
| 105 | - Ignoring user context and grading on taste. |
| 106 | - Treating a critique as approval. State approval explicitly if asked; otherwise critique is feedback, not sign-off. |