s4h-aesthetic-coherence-check

Name: s4h-aesthetic-coherence-check
Author: human-avatar

205stars23forks

How to install s4h-aesthetic-coherence-check?

human-avatar/skills-for-humanity/s4h-aesthetic-coherence-check

$npx -y skills add human-avatar/skills-for-humanity --skill s4h-aesthetic-coherence-check

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Tests whether the parts of something form a unified whole — finding the jarring inconsistencies that accumulate when different contributors work without a shared vision. TRIGGERS: 'coherence check', 'does this feel unified', 'something feels off', 'inconsistent', 'check the whole

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Aesthetic Coherence Check
2
3	Incoherence is the default product of collaboration without a shared vision. Each part
4	may be locally defensible — sensible in isolation, reasonable given what that contributor
5	was optimising for — while the whole communicates nothing clearly. A perceptive reader
6	or user feels this before they can name it. This skill makes the incoherence legible
7	so it can be fixed.
8
9	---
10
11	## Your Process
12
13	Step 1: State the Artefact and Its Intended Identity
14	What is being examined — a product, document, strategy, brand, presentation, process?
15	What identity or effect is it supposed to produce? "Should feel authoritative but
16	approachable" or "Should communicate a single strategic bet" or "Should make a
17	first-time user feel capable in under three minutes." The intended identity is the
18	standard everything else will be measured against.
19
20	Framing check: Confirm the specific artefact and its intended identity before continuing. State what you've identified — the actual object being analyzed and the identity or effect it is supposed to produce — in one sentence, then use `AskUserQuestion`:
21	- Question: "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the artefact and its intended identity]. Is that right?"
22	- Header: "Framing"
23	- Options:
24	- Yes — proceed — framing is correct
25	- Adjust — one element is off; user will correct it before you continue
26	- Reframe — different situation than read; incorporate the correction before proceeding
27
28	Step 2: Examine Each Part
29	Break the artefact into its major components. For each: what does it communicate?
30	What does it prioritise implicitly — speed vs depth, confidence vs humility,
31	complexity vs accessibility? What does it assume about the audience or context?
32	Extract these qualities as observations, not evaluations.
33
34	Step 3: Compare Parts to Each Other
35	Where do assumptions conflict across parts? A section written for technical readers
36	next to one written for executives. A formal tone in one component, casual in another.
37	A design that prioritises simplicity in navigation but complexity in content. Name
38	the specific conflict, not just that something feels inconsistent.
39
40	Step 4: Compare Parts to the Whole
41	Which parts are faithful to the intended identity? Which stray — and in what
42	direction? Is the straying random (different contributors with different instincts)
43	or directional (a competing version of what the thing should be is quietly winning
44	in parts of it)?
45
46	Step 5: Identify the Most Jarring Inconsistencies
47	Before narrowing: Show the complete set of inconsistencies identified across Steps 3 and 4 to the user first. Use `AskUserQuestion`:
48	- Question: "I've identified [N] inconsistencies. Before I select the most damaging, are there any you'd flag as especially important, or any I've missed?"
49	- Header: "Prioritise"
50	- Options:
51	- Proceed with your selection — the set looks right
52	- Flag one — user will name a specific inconsistency to include
53	- Add a missing one — user will describe it
54
55	Find 2-3 specific moments where the lack of coherence is most damaging — where a
56	perceptive reader or user would feel something is wrong, even if they can't say why.
57	Prioritise by impact on the intended identity.
58
59	Step 6: Recommended Adjustments
60	For each jarring inconsistency: what specific change — to which part, in which
61	direction — would bring it into alignment with the intended identity?
62
63	---
64
65	## Human Check-in
66
67	Before proceeding, use the `AskUserQuestion` tool. State your interpretation of the situation in 1–2 sentences — what is being analyzed and what the core question is — then ask:
68
69	- Question: "My read: [your 1–2 sentence interpretation]. How do you want to proceed?"
70	- Header: "Scope"
71	- Options:
72	- Full analysis — Complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
73	- Key findings only — Bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
74	- Incoherence only — Where the parts fail to form a whole, skip confirming what works
75	- Reframe — The read is off; correct it and the analysis will follow the corrected framing
76
77	Proceed based on their selection. If the user reframes, incorporate the correction before running any analysis.
78
79	## Output Format
80
81	Intended Identity: [what the artefact is supposed to be/feel/communicate]
82
83	Parts Assessed
84
85	\| Part \| What It Communicates \| What It Prioritises \| What It Assumes \|
86	\|---\|---\|---\|---\|
87	\| [component] \| [signal it sends] \| [implicit value] \| [audience/context assumption] \|
88
89	Inconsistencies
90
91	\| Inconsistency \| What Conflicts \| Why It Jars \| Recommended Adjustment \|
92	\|

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type

s4h-aesthetic-coherence-check

205stars23forks

View on GitHub

How to install s4h-aesthetic-coherence-check?

human-avatar/skills-for-humanity/s4h-aesthetic-coherence-check

$npx -y skills add human-avatar/skills-for-humanity --skill s4h-aesthetic-coherence-check

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Aesthetic Coherence Check
2
3	Incoherence is the default product of collaboration without a shared vision. Each part
4	may be locally defensible — sensible in isolation, reasonable given what that contributor
5	was optimising for — while the whole communicates nothing clearly. A perceptive reader
6	or user feels this before they can name it. This skill makes the incoherence legible
7	so it can be fixed.
8
9	---
10
11	## Your Process
12
13	Step 1: State the Artefact and Its Intended Identity
14	What is being examined — a product, document, strategy, brand, presentation, process?
15	What identity or effect is it supposed to produce? "Should feel authoritative but
16	approachable" or "Should communicate a single strategic bet" or "Should make a
17	first-time user feel capable in under three minutes." The intended identity is the
18	standard everything else will be measured against.
19
20	Framing check: Confirm the specific artefact and its intended identity before continuing. State what you've identified — the actual object being analyzed and the identity or effect it is supposed to produce — in one sentence, then use `AskUserQuestion`:
21	- Question: "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the artefact and its intended identity]. Is that right?"
22	- Header: "Framing"
23	- Options:
24	- Yes — proceed — framing is correct
25	- Adjust — one element is off; user will correct it before you continue
26	- Reframe — different situation than read; incorporate the correction before proceeding
27
28	Step 2: Examine Each Part
29	Break the artefact into its major components. For each: what does it communicate?
30	What does it prioritise implicitly — speed vs depth, confidence vs humility,
31	complexity vs accessibility? What does it assume about the audience or context?
32	Extract these qualities as observations, not evaluations.
33
34	Step 3: Compare Parts to Each Other
35	Where do assumptions conflict across parts? A section written for technical readers
36	next to one written for executives. A formal tone in one component, casual in another.
37	A design that prioritises simplicity in navigation but complexity in content. Name
38	the specific conflict, not just that something feels inconsistent.
39
40	Step 4: Compare Parts to the Whole
41	Which parts are faithful to the intended identity? Which stray — and in what
42	direction? Is the straying random (different contributors with different instincts)
43	or directional (a competing version of what the thing should be is quietly winning
44	in parts of it)?
45
46	Step 5: Identify the Most Jarring Inconsistencies
47	Before narrowing: Show the complete set of inconsistencies identified across Steps 3 and 4 to the user first. Use `AskUserQuestion`:
48	- Question: "I've identified [N] inconsistencies. Before I select the most damaging, are there any you'd flag as especially important, or any I've missed?"
49	- Header: "Prioritise"
50	- Options:
51	- Proceed with your selection — the set looks right
52	- Flag one — user will name a specific inconsistency to include
53	- Add a missing one — user will describe it
54
55	Find 2-3 specific moments where the lack of coherence is most damaging — where a
56	perceptive reader or user would feel something is wrong, even if they can't say why.
57	Prioritise by impact on the intended identity.
58
59	Step 6: Recommended Adjustments
60	For each jarring inconsistency: what specific change — to which part, in which
61	direction — would bring it into alignment with the intended identity?
62
63	---
64
65	## Human Check-in
66
67	Before proceeding, use the `AskUserQuestion` tool. State your interpretation of the situation in 1–2 sentences — what is being analyzed and what the core question is — then ask:
68
69	- Question: "My read: [your 1–2 sentence interpretation]. How do you want to proceed?"
70	- Header: "Scope"
71	- Options:
72	- Full analysis — Complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
73	- Key findings only — Bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
74	- Incoherence only — Where the parts fail to form a whole, skip confirming what works
75	- Reframe — The read is off; correct it and the analysis will follow the corrected framing
76
77	Proceed based on their selection. If the user reframes, incorporate the correction before running any analysis.
78
79	## Output Format
80
81	Intended Identity: [what the artefact is supposed to be/feel/communicate]
82
83	Parts Assessed
84
85	\| Part \| What It Communicates \| What It Prioritises \| What It Assumes \|
86	\|---\|---\|---\|---\|
87	\| [component] \| [signal it sends] \| [implicit value] \| [audience/context assumption] \|
88
89	Inconsistencies
90
91	\| Inconsistency \| What Conflicts \| Why It Jars \| Recommended Adjustment \|
92	\|

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type