diff --git a/.agents/skills/audit/SKILL.md b/.agents/skills/audit/SKILL.md
index b0cee9eaa..1debe043e 100644
--- a/.agents/skills/audit/SKILL.md
+++ b/.agents/skills/audit/SKILL.md
@@ -1,125 +1,147 @@
 ---
 name: audit
-description: Perform a comprehensive audit of interface quality across accessibility, performance, theming, and responsive design. Generates a prioritized report with severity ratings. Use when the user wants a design review, accessibility check, quality audit, or a full list of UI issues to fix.
+description: Run technical quality checks across accessibility, performance, theming, responsive design, and anti-patterns. Generates a scored report with P0-P3 severity ratings and actionable plan. Use when the user wants an accessibility check, performance audit, or technical quality review.
 user-invocable: true
 argument-hint: "[area (feature, page, component...)]"
 ---
 
-Run systematic quality checks and generate a comprehensive audit report with prioritized issues and actionable recommendations. Don't fix issues - document them for other commands to address.
+## MANDATORY PREPARATION
 
-**First**: Invoke /frontend-design for design principles and anti-patterns.
+Invoke /frontend-design — it contains design principles, anti-patterns, and the **Context Gathering Protocol**. Follow the protocol before proceeding — if no design context exists yet, you MUST run /teach-impeccable first.
+
+---
+
+Run systematic **technical** quality checks and generate a comprehensive report. Don't fix issues — document them for other commands to address.
+
+This is a code-level audit, not a design critique. Check what's measurable and verifiable in the implementation.
 
 ## Diagnostic Scan
 
-Run comprehensive checks across multiple dimensions:
+Run comprehensive checks across 5 dimensions. Score each dimension 0-4 using the criteria below.
 
-1. **Accessibility (A11y)** - Check for:
-   - **Contrast issues**: Text contrast ratios < 4.5:1 (or 7:1 for AAA)
-   - **Missing ARIA**: Interactive elements without proper roles, labels, or states
-   - **Keyboard navigation**: Missing focus indicators, illogical tab order, keyboard traps
-   - **Semantic HTML**: Improper heading hierarchy, missing landmarks, divs instead of buttons
-   - **Alt text**: Missing or poor image descriptions
-   - **Form issues**: Inputs without labels, poor error messaging, missing required indicators
+### 1. Accessibility (A11y)
 
-2. **Performance** - Check for:
-   - **Layout thrashing**: Reading/writing layout properties in loops
-   - **Expensive animations**: Animating layout properties (width, height, top, left) instead of transform/opacity
-   - **Missing optimization**: Images without lazy loading, unoptimized assets, missing will-change
-   - **Bundle size**: Unnecessary imports, unused dependencies
-   - **Render performance**: Unnecessary re-renders, missing memoization
+**Check for**:
+- **Contrast issues**: Text contrast ratios < 4.5:1 (or 7:1 for AAA)
+- **Missing ARIA**: Interactive elements without proper roles, labels, or states
+- **Keyboard navigation**: Missing focus indicators, illogical tab order, keyboard traps
+- **Semantic HTML**: Improper heading hierarchy, missing landmarks, divs instead of buttons
+- **Alt text**: Missing or poor image descriptions
+- **Form issues**: Inputs without labels, poor error messaging, missing required indicators
 
-3. **Theming** - Check for:
-   - **Hard-coded colors**: Colors not using design tokens
-   - **Broken dark mode**: Missing dark mode variants, poor contrast in dark theme
-   - **Inconsistent tokens**: Using wrong tokens, mixing token types
-   - **Theme switching issues**: Values that don't update on theme change
+**Score 0-4**: 0=Inaccessible (fails WCAG A), 1=Major gaps (few ARIA labels, no keyboard nav), 2=Partial (some a11y effort, significant gaps), 3=Good (WCAG AA mostly met, minor gaps), 4=Excellent (WCAG AA fully met, approaches AAA)
 
-4. **Responsive Design** - Check for:
-   - **Fixed widths**: Hard-coded widths that break on mobile
-   - **Touch targets**: Interactive elements < 44x44px
-   - **Horizontal scroll**: Content overflow on narrow viewports
-   - **Text scaling**: Layouts that break when text size increases
-   - **Missing breakpoints**: No mobile/tablet variants
+### 2. Performance
 
-5. **Anti-Patterns (CRITICAL)** - Check against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill. Look for AI slop tells (AI color palette, gradient text, glassmorphism, hero metrics, card grids, generic fonts) and general design anti-patterns (gray on color, nested cards, bounce easing, redundant copy).
+**Check for**:
+- **Layout thrashing**: Reading/writing layout properties in loops
+- **Expensive animations**: Animating layout properties (width, height, top, left) instead of transform/opacity
+- **Missing optimization**: Images without lazy loading, unoptimized assets, missing will-change
+- **Bundle size**: Unnecessary imports, unused dependencies
+- **Render performance**: Unnecessary re-renders, missing memoization
 
-**CRITICAL**: This is an audit, not a fix. Document issues thoroughly with clear explanations of impact. Use other commands (normalize, optimize, harden, etc.) to fix issues after audit.
+**Score 0-4**: 0=Severe issues (layout thrash, unoptimized everything), 1=Major problems (no lazy loading, expensive animations), 2=Partial (some optimization, gaps remain), 3=Good (mostly optimized, minor improvements possible), 4=Excellent (fast, lean, well-optimized)
 
-## Generate Comprehensive Report
+### 3. Theming
 
-Create a detailed audit report with the following structure:
+**Check for**:
+- **Hard-coded colors**: Colors not using design tokens
+- **Broken dark mode**: Missing dark mode variants, poor contrast in dark theme
+- **Inconsistent tokens**: Using wrong tokens, mixing token types
+- **Theme switching issues**: Values that don't update on theme change
+
+**Score 0-4**: 0=No theming (hard-coded everything), 1=Minimal tokens (mostly hard-coded), 2=Partial (tokens exist but inconsistently used), 3=Good (tokens used, minor hard-coded values), 4=Excellent (full token system, dark mode works perfectly)
+
+### 4. Responsive Design
+
+**Check for**:
+- **Fixed widths**: Hard-coded widths that break on mobile
+- **Touch targets**: Interactive elements < 44x44px
+- **Horizontal scroll**: Content overflow on narrow viewports
+- **Text scaling**: Layouts that break when text size increases
+- **Missing breakpoints**: No mobile/tablet variants
+
+**Score 0-4**: 0=Desktop-only (breaks on mobile), 1=Major issues (some breakpoints, many failures), 2=Partial (works on mobile, rough edges), 3=Good (responsive, minor touch target or overflow issues), 4=Excellent (fluid, all viewports, proper touch targets)
+
+### 5. Anti-Patterns (CRITICAL)
+
+Check against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill. Look for AI slop tells (AI color palette, gradient text, glassmorphism, hero metrics, card grids, generic fonts) and general design anti-patterns (gray on color, nested cards, bounce easing, redundant copy).
+
+**Score 0-4**: 0=AI slop gallery (5+ tells), 1=Heavy AI aesthetic (3-4 tells), 2=Some tells (1-2 noticeable), 3=Mostly clean (subtle issues only), 4=No AI tells (distinctive, intentional design)
+
+## Generate Report
+
+### Audit Health Score
+
+| # | Dimension | Score | Key Finding |
+|---|-----------|-------|-------------|
+| 1 | Accessibility | ? | [most critical a11y issue or "--"] |
+| 2 | Performance | ? | |
+| 3 | Responsive Design | ? | |
+| 4 | Theming | ? | |
+| 5 | Anti-Patterns | ? | |
+| **Total** | | **??/20** | **[Rating band]** |
+
+**Rating bands**: 18-20 Excellent (minor polish), 14-17 Good (address weak dimensions), 10-13 Acceptable (significant work needed), 6-9 Poor (major overhaul), 0-5 Critical (fundamental issues)
 
 ### Anti-Patterns Verdict
-**Start here.** Pass/fail: Does this look AI-generated? List specific tells from the skill's Anti-Patterns section. Be brutally honest.
+**Start here.** Pass/fail: Does this look AI-generated? List specific tells. Be brutally honest.
 
 ### Executive Summary
-- Total issues found (count by severity)
-- Most critical issues (top 3-5)
-- Overall quality score (if applicable)
+- Audit Health Score: **??/20** ([rating band])
+- Total issues found (count by severity: P0/P1/P2/P3)
+- Top 3-5 critical issues
 - Recommended next steps
 
 ### Detailed Findings by Severity
 
+Tag every issue with **P0-P3 severity**:
+- **P0 Blocking**: Prevents task completion — fix immediately
+- **P1 Major**: Significant difficulty or WCAG AA violation — fix before release
+- **P2 Minor**: Annoyance, workaround exists — fix in next pass
+- **P3 Polish**: Nice-to-fix, no real user impact — fix if time permits
+
 For each issue, document:
-- **Location**: Where the issue occurs (component, file, line)
-- **Severity**: Critical / High / Medium / Low
-- **Category**: Accessibility / Performance / Theming / Responsive
-- **Description**: What the issue is
+- **[P?] Issue name**
+- **Location**: Component, file, line
+- **Category**: Accessibility / Performance / Theming / Responsive / Anti-Pattern
 - **Impact**: How it affects users
 - **WCAG/Standard**: Which standard it violates (if applicable)
 - **Recommendation**: How to fix it
-- **Suggested command**: Which command to use (prefer: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive — or other installed skills you're sure exist)
-
-#### Critical Issues
-[Issues that block core functionality or violate WCAG A]
-
-#### High-Severity Issues  
-[Significant usability/accessibility impact, WCAG AA violations]
-
-#### Medium-Severity Issues
-[Quality issues, WCAG AAA violations, performance concerns]
-
-#### Low-Severity Issues
-[Minor inconsistencies, optimization opportunities]
+- **Suggested command**: Which command to use (prefer: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive)
 
 ### Patterns & Systemic Issues
 
-Identify recurring problems:
+Identify recurring problems that indicate systemic gaps rather than one-off mistakes:
 - "Hard-coded colors appear in 15+ components, should use design tokens"
 - "Touch targets consistently too small (<44px) throughout mobile experience"
-- "Missing focus indicators on all custom interactive components"
 
 ### Positive Findings
 
-Note what's working well:
-- Good practices to maintain
-- Exemplary implementations to replicate elsewhere
+Note what's working well — good practices to maintain and replicate.
 
-### Recommendations by Priority
+## Recommended Actions
 
-Create actionable plan:
-1. **Immediate**: Critical blockers to fix first
-2. **Short-term**: High-severity issues (this sprint)
-3. **Medium-term**: Quality improvements (next sprint)
-4. **Long-term**: Nice-to-haves and optimizations
+List recommended commands in priority order (P0 first, then P1, then P2):
 
-### Suggested Commands for Fixes
+1. **[P?] `/command-name`** — Brief description (specific context from audit findings)
+2. **[P?] `/command-name`** — Brief description (specific context)
 
-Map issues to available commands. Prefer these: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive. You may also suggest other installed skills you're sure exist, but never invent commands.
+**Rules**: Only recommend commands from: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive. Map findings to the most appropriate command. End with `/polish` as the final step if any fixes were recommended.
 
-Examples:
-- "Use `/normalize` to align with design system (addresses N theming issues)"
-- "Use `/optimize` to improve performance (addresses N performance issues)"
-- "Use `/harden` to improve resilience (addresses N edge cases)"
+After presenting the summary, tell the user:
 
-**IMPORTANT**: Be thorough but actionable. Too many low-priority issues creates noise. Focus on what actually matters.
+> You can ask me to run these one at a time, all at once, or in any order you prefer.
+>
+> Re-run `/audit` after fixes to see your score improve.
+
+**IMPORTANT**: Be thorough but actionable. Too many P3 issues creates noise. Focus on what actually matters.
 
 **NEVER**:
 - Report issues without explaining impact (why does this matter?)
-- Mix severity levels inconsistently
-- Skip positive findings (celebrate what works)
 - Provide generic recommendations (be specific and actionable)
-- Forget to prioritize (everything can't be critical)
+- Skip positive findings (celebrate what works)
+- Forget to prioritize (everything can't be P0)
 - Report false positives without verification
 
-Remember: You're a quality auditor with exceptional attention to detail. Document systematically, prioritize ruthlessly, and provide clear paths to improvement. A good audit makes fixing easy.
\ No newline at end of file
+Remember: You're a technical quality auditor. Document systematically, prioritize ruthlessly, cite specific code locations, and provide clear paths to improvement.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/.agents/skills/critique/SKILL.md b/.agents/skills/critique/SKILL.md
index 29806cd81..70ac82f1d 100644
--- a/.agents/skills/critique/SKILL.md
+++ b/.agents/skills/critique/SKILL.md
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 name: critique
-description: Evaluate design effectiveness from a UX perspective. Assesses visual hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, and overall design quality with actionable feedback. Use when the user asks to review, critique, evaluate, audit, or give feedback on a design, UI, or component.
+description: Evaluate design from a UX perspective, assessing visual hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, cognitive load, and overall quality with quantitative scoring, persona-based testing, and actionable feedback. Use when the user asks to review, critique, evaluate, or give feedback on a design or component.
 user-invocable: true
 argument-hint: "[area (feature, page, component...)]"
 ---
@@ -11,9 +11,9 @@ Invoke /frontend-design — it contains design principles, anti-patterns, and th
 
 ---
 
-Conduct a holistic design critique, evaluating whether the interface actually works—not just technically, but as a designed experience. Think like a design director giving feedback.
+Conduct a holistic design critique, evaluating whether the interface actually works — not just technically, but as a designed experience. Think like a design director giving feedback.
 
-## Design Critique
+## Phase 1: Design Critique
 
 Evaluate the interface across these dimensions:
 
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ Evaluate the interface across these dimensions:
 
 **This is the most important check.** Does this look like every other AI-generated interface from 2024-2025?
 
-Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill—they are the fingerprints of AI-generated work. Check for the AI color palette, gradient text, dark mode with glowing accents, glassmorphism, hero metric layouts, identical card grids, generic fonts, and all other tells.
+Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill — they are the fingerprints of AI-generated work. Check for the AI color palette, gradient text, dark mode with glowing accents, glassmorphism, hero metric layouts, identical card grids, generic fonts, and all other tells.
 
 **The test**: If you showed this to someone and said "AI made this," would they believe you immediately? If yes, that's the problem.
 
@@ -31,17 +31,23 @@ Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design sk
 - Do size, color, and position communicate importance correctly?
 - Is there visual competition between elements that should have different weights?
 
-### 3. Information Architecture
+### 3. Information Architecture & Cognitive Load
+> *Consult [cognitive-load](reference/cognitive-load.md) for the working memory rule and 8-item checklist*
 - Is the structure intuitive? Would a new user understand the organization?
 - Is related content grouped logically?
-- Are there too many choices at once? (cognitive overload)
+- Are there too many choices at once? Count visible options at each decision point — if >4, flag it
 - Is the navigation clear and predictable?
+- **Progressive disclosure**: Is complexity revealed only when needed, or dumped on the user upfront?
+- **Run the 8-item cognitive load checklist** from the reference. Report failure count: 0–1 = low (good), 2–3 = moderate, 4+ = critical.
 
-### 4. Emotional Resonance
+### 4. Emotional Journey
 - What emotion does this interface evoke? Is that intentional?
 - Does it match the brand personality?
-- Does it feel trustworthy, approachable, premium, playful—whatever it should feel?
+- Does it feel trustworthy, approachable, premium, playful — whatever it should feel?
 - Would the target user feel "this is for me"?
+- **Peak-end rule**: Is the most intense moment positive? Does the experience end well (confirmation, celebration, clear next step)?
+- **Emotional valleys**: Check for onboarding frustration, error cliffs, feature discovery gaps, or anxiety spikes at high-stakes moments (payment, delete, commit)
+- **Interventions at negative moments**: Are there design interventions where users are likely to feel frustrated or anxious? (progress indicators, reassurance copy, undo options, social proof)
 
 ### 5. Discoverability & Affordance
 - Are interactive elements obviously interactive?
@@ -65,7 +71,7 @@ Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design sk
 - Is color used to communicate, not just decorate?
 - Does the palette feel cohesive?
 - Are accent colors drawing attention to the right things?
-- Does it work for colorblind users? (not just technically—does meaning still come through?)
+- Does it work for colorblind users? (not just technically — does meaning still come through?)
 
 ### 9. States & Edge Cases
 - Empty states: Do they guide users toward action, or just say "nothing here"?
@@ -79,41 +85,117 @@ Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design sk
 - Are labels and buttons unambiguous?
 - Does error copy help users fix the problem?
 
-## Generate Critique Report
+## Phase 2: Present Findings
 
 Structure your feedback as a design director would:
 
+### Design Health Score
+> *Consult [heuristics-scoring](reference/heuristics-scoring.md)*
+
+Score each of Nielsen's 10 heuristics 0–4. Present as a table:
+
+| # | Heuristic | Score | Key Issue |
+|---|-----------|-------|-----------|
+| 1 | Visibility of System Status | ? | [specific finding or "—" if solid] |
+| 2 | Match System / Real World | ? | |
+| 3 | User Control and Freedom | ? | |
+| 4 | Consistency and Standards | ? | |
+| 5 | Error Prevention | ? | |
+| 6 | Recognition Rather Than Recall | ? | |
+| 7 | Flexibility and Efficiency | ? | |
+| 8 | Aesthetic and Minimalist Design | ? | |
+| 9 | Error Recovery | ? | |
+| 10 | Help and Documentation | ? | |
+| **Total** | | **??/40** | **[Rating band]** |
+
+Be honest with scores. A 4 means genuinely excellent. Most real interfaces score 20–32.
+
 ### Anti-Patterns Verdict
 **Start here.** Pass/fail: Does this look AI-generated? List specific tells from the skill's Anti-Patterns section. Be brutally honest.
 
 ### Overall Impression
-A brief gut reaction—what works, what doesn't, and the single biggest opportunity.
+A brief gut reaction — what works, what doesn't, and the single biggest opportunity.
 
 ### What's Working
-Highlight 2-3 things done well. Be specific about why they work.
+Highlight 2–3 things done well. Be specific about why they work.
 
 ### Priority Issues
-The 3-5 most impactful design problems, ordered by importance:
+The 3–5 most impactful design problems, ordered by importance.
 
-For each issue:
-- **What**: Name the problem clearly
+For each issue, tag with **P0–P3 severity** (consult [heuristics-scoring](reference/heuristics-scoring.md) for severity definitions):
+- **[P?] What**: Name the problem clearly
 - **Why it matters**: How this hurts users or undermines goals
 - **Fix**: What to do about it (be concrete)
-- **Command**: Which command to use (prefer: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive — or other installed skills you're sure exist)
+- **Suggested command**: Which command could address this (from: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive)
+
+### Persona Red Flags
+> *Consult [personas](reference/personas.md)*
+
+Auto-select 2–3 personas most relevant to this interface type (use the selection table in the reference). If `.github/copilot-instructions.md` contains a `## Design Context` section from `teach-impeccable`, also generate 1–2 project-specific personas from the audience/brand info.
+
+For each selected persona, walk through the primary user action and list specific red flags found:
+
+**Alex (Power User)**: No keyboard shortcuts detected. Form requires 8 clicks for primary action. Forced modal onboarding. ⚠️ High abandonment risk.
+
+**Jordan (First-Timer)**: Icon-only nav in sidebar. Technical jargon in error messages ("404 Not Found"). No visible help. ⚠️ Will abandon at step 2.
+
+Be specific — name the exact elements and interactions that fail each persona. Don't write generic persona descriptions; write what broke for them.
 
 ### Minor Observations
 Quick notes on smaller issues worth addressing.
 
-### Questions to Consider
-Provocative questions that might unlock better solutions:
-- "What if the primary action were more prominent?"
-- "Does this need to feel this complex?"
-- "What would a confident version of this look like?"
-
 **Remember**:
-- Be direct—vague feedback wastes everyone's time
-- Be specific—"the submit button" not "some elements"
+- Be direct — vague feedback wastes everyone's time
+- Be specific — "the submit button" not "some elements"
 - Say what's wrong AND why it matters to users
 - Give concrete suggestions, not just "consider exploring..."
-- Prioritize ruthlessly—if everything is important, nothing is
-- Don't soften criticism—developers need honest feedback to ship great design
\ No newline at end of file
+- Prioritize ruthlessly — if everything is important, nothing is
+- Don't soften criticism — developers need honest feedback to ship great design
+
+## Phase 3: Ask the User
+
+**After presenting findings**, use targeted questions based on what was actually found. ask the user directly to clarify what you cannot infer. These answers will shape the action plan.
+
+Ask questions along these lines (adapt to the specific findings — do NOT ask generic questions):
+
+1. **Priority direction**: Based on the issues found, ask which category matters most to the user right now. For example: "I found problems with visual hierarchy, color usage, and information overload. Which area should we tackle first?" Offer the top 2–3 issue categories as options.
+
+2. **Design intent**: If the critique found a tonal mismatch, ask whether it was intentional. For example: "The interface feels clinical and corporate. Is that the intended tone, or should it feel warmer/bolder/more playful?" Offer 2–3 tonal directions as options based on what would fix the issues found.
+
+3. **Scope**: Ask how much the user wants to take on. For example: "I found N issues. Want to address everything, or focus on the top 3?" Offer scope options like "Top 3 only", "All issues", "Critical issues only".
+
+4. **Constraints** (optional — only ask if relevant): If the findings touch many areas, ask if anything is off-limits. For example: "Should any sections stay as-is?" This prevents the plan from touching things the user considers done.
+
+**Rules for questions**:
+- Every question must reference specific findings from Phase 2 — never ask generic "who is your audience?" questions
+- Keep it to 2–4 questions maximum — respect the user's time
+- Offer concrete options, not open-ended prompts
+- If findings are straightforward (e.g., only 1–2 clear issues), skip questions and go directly to Phase 4
+
+## Phase 4: Recommended Actions
+
+**After receiving the user's answers**, present a prioritized action summary reflecting the user's priorities and scope from Phase 3.
+
+### Action Summary
+
+List recommended commands in priority order, based on the user's answers:
+
+1. **`/command-name`** — Brief description of what to fix (specific context from critique findings)
+2. **`/command-name`** — Brief description (specific context)
+...
+
+**Rules for recommendations**:
+- Only recommend commands from: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive
+- Order by the user's stated priorities first, then by impact
+- Each item's description should carry enough context that the command knows what to focus on
+- Map each Priority Issue to the appropriate command
+- Skip commands that would address zero issues
+- If the user chose a limited scope, only include items within that scope
+- If the user marked areas as off-limits, exclude commands that would touch those areas
+- End with `/polish` as the final step if any fixes were recommended
+
+After presenting the summary, tell the user:
+
+> You can ask me to run these one at a time, all at once, or in any order you prefer.
+>
+> Re-run `/critique` after fixes to see your score improve.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/.agents/skills/critique/reference/cognitive-load.md b/.agents/skills/critique/reference/cognitive-load.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..313df166b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.agents/skills/critique/reference/cognitive-load.md
@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+# Cognitive Load Assessment
+
+Cognitive load is the total mental effort required to use an interface. Overloaded users make mistakes, get frustrated, and leave. This reference helps identify and fix cognitive overload.
+
+---
+
+## Three Types of Cognitive Load
+
+### Intrinsic Load — The Task Itself
+Complexity inherent to what the user is trying to do. You can't eliminate this, but you can structure it.
+
+**Manage it by**:
+- Breaking complex tasks into discrete steps
+- Providing scaffolding (templates, defaults, examples)
+- Progressive disclosure — show what's needed now, hide the rest
+- Grouping related decisions together
+
+### Extraneous Load — Bad Design
+Mental effort caused by poor design choices. **Eliminate this ruthlessly** — it's pure waste.
+
+**Common sources**:
+- Confusing navigation that requires mental mapping
+- Unclear labels that force users to guess meaning
+- Visual clutter competing for attention
+- Inconsistent patterns that prevent learning
+- Unnecessary steps between user intent and result
+
+### Germane Load — Learning Effort
+Mental effort spent building understanding. This is *good* cognitive load — it leads to mastery.
+
+**Support it by**:
+- Progressive disclosure that reveals complexity gradually
+- Consistent patterns that reward learning
+- Feedback that confirms correct understanding
+- Onboarding that teaches through action, not walls of text
+
+---
+
+## Cognitive Load Checklist
+
+Evaluate the interface against these 8 items:
+
+- [ ] **Single focus**: Can the user complete their primary task without distraction from competing elements?
+- [ ] **Chunking**: Is information presented in digestible groups (≤4 items per group)?
+- [ ] **Grouping**: Are related items visually grouped together (proximity, borders, shared background)?
+- [ ] **Visual hierarchy**: Is it immediately clear what's most important on the screen?
+- [ ] **One thing at a time**: Can the user focus on a single decision before moving to the next?
+- [ ] **Minimal choices**: Are decisions simplified (≤4 visible options at any decision point)?
+- [ ] **Working memory**: Does the user need to remember information from a previous screen to act on the current one?
+- [ ] **Progressive disclosure**: Is complexity revealed only when the user needs it?
+
+**Scoring**: Count the failed items. 0–1 failures = low cognitive load (good). 2–3 = moderate (address soon). 4+ = high cognitive load (critical fix needed).
+
+---
+
+## The Working Memory Rule
+
+**Humans can hold ≤4 items in working memory at once** (Miller's Law revised by Cowan, 2001).
+
+At any decision point, count the number of distinct options, actions, or pieces of information a user must simultaneously consider:
+- **≤4 items**: Within working memory limits — manageable
+- **5–7 items**: Pushing the boundary — consider grouping or progressive disclosure
+- **8+ items**: Overloaded — users will skip, misclick, or abandon
+
+**Practical applications**:
+- Navigation menus: ≤5 top-level items (group the rest under clear categories)
+- Form sections: ≤4 fields visible per group before a visual break
+- Action buttons: 1 primary, 1–2 secondary, group the rest in a menu
+- Dashboard widgets: ≤4 key metrics visible without scrolling
+- Pricing tiers: ≤3 options (more causes analysis paralysis)
+
+---
+
+## Common Cognitive Load Violations
+
+### 1. The Wall of Options
+**Problem**: Presenting 10+ choices at once with no hierarchy.
+**Fix**: Group into categories, highlight recommended, use progressive disclosure.
+
+### 2. The Memory Bridge
+**Problem**: User must remember info from step 1 to complete step 3.
+**Fix**: Keep relevant context visible, or repeat it where it's needed.
+
+### 3. The Hidden Navigation
+**Problem**: User must build a mental map of where things are.
+**Fix**: Always show current location (breadcrumbs, active states, progress indicators).
+
+### 4. The Jargon Barrier
+**Problem**: Technical or domain language forces translation effort.
+**Fix**: Use plain language. If domain terms are unavoidable, define them inline.
+
+### 5. The Visual Noise Floor
+**Problem**: Every element has the same visual weight — nothing stands out.
+**Fix**: Establish clear hierarchy: one primary element, 2–3 secondary, everything else muted.
+
+### 6. The Inconsistent Pattern
+**Problem**: Similar actions work differently in different places.
+**Fix**: Standardize interaction patterns. Same type of action = same type of UI.
+
+### 7. The Multi-Task Demand
+**Problem**: Interface requires processing multiple simultaneous inputs (reading + deciding + navigating).
+**Fix**: Sequence the steps. Let the user do one thing at a time.
+
+### 8. The Context Switch
+**Problem**: User must jump between screens/tabs/modals to gather info for a single decision.
+**Fix**: Co-locate the information needed for each decision. Reduce back-and-forth.
diff --git a/.agents/skills/critique/reference/heuristics-scoring.md b/.agents/skills/critique/reference/heuristics-scoring.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..fd5b1b08b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.agents/skills/critique/reference/heuristics-scoring.md
@@ -0,0 +1,234 @@
+# Heuristics Scoring Guide
+
+Score each of Nielsen's 10 Usability Heuristics on a 0–4 scale. Be honest — a 4 means genuinely excellent, not "good enough."
+
+## Nielsen's 10 Heuristics
+
+### 1. Visibility of System Status
+
+Keep users informed about what's happening through timely, appropriate feedback.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Loading indicators during async operations
+- Confirmation of user actions (save, submit, delete)
+- Progress indicators for multi-step processes
+- Current location in navigation (breadcrumbs, active states)
+- Form validation feedback (inline, not just on submit)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | No feedback — user is guessing what happened |
+| 1 | Rare feedback — most actions produce no visible response |
+| 2 | Partial — some states communicated, major gaps remain |
+| 3 | Good — most operations give clear feedback, minor gaps |
+| 4 | Excellent — every action confirms, progress is always visible |
+
+### 2. Match Between System and Real World
+
+Speak the user's language. Follow real-world conventions. Information appears in natural, logical order.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Familiar terminology (no unexplained jargon)
+- Logical information order matching user expectations
+- Recognizable icons and metaphors
+- Domain-appropriate language for the target audience
+- Natural reading flow (left-to-right, top-to-bottom priority)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Pure tech jargon, alien to users |
+| 1 | Mostly confusing — requires domain expertise to navigate |
+| 2 | Mixed — some plain language, some jargon leaks through |
+| 3 | Mostly natural — occasional term needs context |
+| 4 | Speaks the user's language fluently throughout |
+
+### 3. User Control and Freedom
+
+Users need a clear "emergency exit" from unwanted states without extended dialogue.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Undo/redo functionality
+- Cancel buttons on forms and modals
+- Clear navigation back to safety (home, previous)
+- Easy way to clear filters, search, selections
+- Escape from long or multi-step processes
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Users get trapped — no way out without refreshing |
+| 1 | Difficult exits — must find obscure paths to escape |
+| 2 | Some exits — main flows have escape, edge cases don't |
+| 3 | Good control — users can exit and undo most actions |
+| 4 | Full control — undo, cancel, back, and escape everywhere |
+
+### 4. Consistency and Standards
+
+Users shouldn't wonder whether different words, situations, or actions mean the same thing.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Consistent terminology throughout the interface
+- Same actions produce same results everywhere
+- Platform conventions followed (standard UI patterns)
+- Visual consistency (colors, typography, spacing, components)
+- Consistent interaction patterns (same gesture = same behavior)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Inconsistent everywhere — feels like different products stitched together |
+| 1 | Many inconsistencies — similar things look/behave differently |
+| 2 | Partially consistent — main flows match, details diverge |
+| 3 | Mostly consistent — occasional deviation, nothing confusing |
+| 4 | Fully consistent — cohesive system, predictable behavior |
+
+### 5. Error Prevention
+
+Better than good error messages is a design that prevents problems in the first place.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Confirmation before destructive actions (delete, overwrite)
+- Constraints preventing invalid input (date pickers, dropdowns)
+- Smart defaults that reduce errors
+- Clear labels that prevent misunderstanding
+- Autosave and draft recovery
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Errors easy to make — no guardrails anywhere |
+| 1 | Few safeguards — some inputs validated, most aren't |
+| 2 | Partial prevention — common errors caught, edge cases slip |
+| 3 | Good prevention — most error paths blocked proactively |
+| 4 | Excellent — errors nearly impossible through smart constraints |
+
+### 6. Recognition Rather Than Recall
+
+Minimize memory load. Make objects, actions, and options visible or easily retrievable.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Visible options (not buried in hidden menus)
+- Contextual help when needed (tooltips, inline hints)
+- Recent items and history
+- Autocomplete and suggestions
+- Labels on icons (not icon-only navigation)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Heavy memorization — users must remember paths and commands |
+| 1 | Mostly recall — many hidden features, few visible cues |
+| 2 | Some aids — main actions visible, secondary features hidden |
+| 3 | Good recognition — most things discoverable, few memory demands |
+| 4 | Everything discoverable — users never need to memorize |
+
+### 7. Flexibility and Efficiency of Use
+
+Accelerators — invisible to novices — speed up expert interaction.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Keyboard shortcuts for common actions
+- Customizable interface elements
+- Recent items and favorites
+- Bulk/batch actions
+- Power user features that don't complicate the basics
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | One rigid path — no shortcuts or alternatives |
+| 1 | Limited flexibility — few alternatives to the main path |
+| 2 | Some shortcuts — basic keyboard support, limited bulk actions |
+| 3 | Good accelerators — keyboard nav, some customization |
+| 4 | Highly flexible — multiple paths, power features, customizable |
+
+### 8. Aesthetic and Minimalist Design
+
+Interfaces should not contain irrelevant or rarely needed information. Every element should serve a purpose.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Only necessary information visible at each step
+- Clear visual hierarchy directing attention
+- Purposeful use of color and emphasis
+- No decorative clutter competing for attention
+- Focused, uncluttered layouts
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Overwhelming — everything competes for attention equally |
+| 1 | Cluttered — too much noise, hard to find what matters |
+| 2 | Some clutter — main content clear, periphery noisy |
+| 3 | Mostly clean — focused design, minor visual noise |
+| 4 | Perfectly minimal — every element earns its pixel |
+
+### 9. Help Users Recognize, Diagnose, and Recover from Errors
+
+Error messages should use plain language, precisely indicate the problem, and constructively suggest a solution.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Plain language error messages (no error codes for users)
+- Specific problem identification ("Email is missing @" not "Invalid input")
+- Actionable recovery suggestions
+- Errors displayed near the source of the problem
+- Non-blocking error handling (don't wipe the form)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Cryptic errors — codes, jargon, or no message at all |
+| 1 | Vague errors — "Something went wrong" with no guidance |
+| 2 | Clear but unhelpful — names the problem but not the fix |
+| 3 | Clear with suggestions — identifies problem and offers next steps |
+| 4 | Perfect recovery — pinpoints issue, suggests fix, preserves user work |
+
+### 10. Help and Documentation
+
+Even if the system is usable without docs, help should be easy to find, task-focused, and concise.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Searchable help or documentation
+- Contextual help (tooltips, inline hints, guided tours)
+- Task-focused organization (not feature-organized)
+- Concise, scannable content
+- Easy access without leaving current context
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | No help available anywhere |
+| 1 | Help exists but hard to find or irrelevant |
+| 2 | Basic help — FAQ or docs exist, not contextual |
+| 3 | Good documentation — searchable, mostly task-focused |
+| 4 | Excellent contextual help — right info at the right moment |
+
+---
+
+## Score Summary
+
+**Total possible**: 40 points (10 heuristics × 4 max)
+
+| Score Range | Rating | What It Means |
+|-------------|--------|---------------|
+| 36–40 | Excellent | Minor polish only — ship it |
+| 28–35 | Good | Address weak areas, solid foundation |
+| 20–27 | Acceptable | Significant improvements needed before users are happy |
+| 12–19 | Poor | Major UX overhaul required — core experience broken |
+| 0–11 | Critical | Redesign needed — unusable in current state |
+
+---
+
+## Issue Severity (P0–P3)
+
+Tag each individual issue found during scoring with a priority level:
+
+| Priority | Name | Description | Action |
+|----------|------|-------------|--------|
+| **P0** | Blocking | Prevents task completion entirely | Fix immediately — this is a showstopper |
+| **P1** | Major | Causes significant difficulty or confusion | Fix before release |
+| **P2** | Minor | Annoyance, but workaround exists | Fix in next pass |
+| **P3** | Polish | Nice-to-fix, no real user impact | Fix if time permits |
+
+**Tip**: If you're unsure between two levels, ask: "Would a user contact support about this?" If yes, it's at least P1.
diff --git a/.agents/skills/critique/reference/personas.md b/.agents/skills/critique/reference/personas.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..eb2f2b6d1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.agents/skills/critique/reference/personas.md
@@ -0,0 +1,178 @@
+# Persona-Based Design Testing
+
+Test the interface through the eyes of 5 distinct user archetypes. Each persona exposes different failure modes that a single "design director" perspective would miss.
+
+**How to use**: Select 2–3 personas most relevant to the interface being critiqued. Walk through the primary user action as each persona. Report specific red flags — not generic concerns.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Impatient Power User — "Alex"
+
+**Profile**: Expert with similar products. Expects efficiency, hates hand-holding. Will find shortcuts or leave.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Skips all onboarding and instructions
+- Looks for keyboard shortcuts immediately
+- Tries to bulk-select, batch-edit, and automate
+- Gets frustrated by required steps that feel unnecessary
+- Abandons if anything feels slow or patronizing
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Can Alex complete the core task in under 60 seconds?
+- Are there keyboard shortcuts for common actions?
+- Can onboarding be skipped entirely?
+- Do modals have keyboard dismiss (Esc)?
+- Is there a "power user" path (shortcuts, bulk actions)?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Forced tutorials or unskippable onboarding
+- No keyboard navigation for primary actions
+- Slow animations that can't be skipped
+- One-item-at-a-time workflows where batch would be natural
+- Redundant confirmation steps for low-risk actions
+
+---
+
+## 2. Confused First-Timer — "Jordan"
+
+**Profile**: Never used this type of product. Needs guidance at every step. Will abandon rather than figure it out.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Reads all instructions carefully
+- Hesitates before clicking anything unfamiliar
+- Looks for help or support constantly
+- Misunderstands jargon and abbreviations
+- Takes the most literal interpretation of any label
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Is the first action obviously clear within 5 seconds?
+- Are all icons labeled with text?
+- Is there contextual help at decision points?
+- Does terminology assume prior knowledge?
+- Is there a clear "back" or "undo" at every step?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Icon-only navigation with no labels
+- Technical jargon without explanation
+- No visible help option or guidance
+- Ambiguous next steps after completing an action
+- No confirmation that an action succeeded
+
+---
+
+## 3. Accessibility-Dependent User — "Sam"
+
+**Profile**: Uses screen reader (VoiceOver/NVDA), keyboard-only navigation. May have low vision, motor impairment, or cognitive differences.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Tabs through the interface linearly
+- Relies on ARIA labels and heading structure
+- Cannot see hover states or visual-only indicators
+- Needs adequate color contrast (4.5:1 minimum)
+- May use browser zoom up to 200%
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Can the entire primary flow be completed keyboard-only?
+- Are all interactive elements focusable with visible focus indicators?
+- Do images have meaningful alt text?
+- Is color contrast WCAG AA compliant (4.5:1 for text)?
+- Does the screen reader announce state changes (loading, success, errors)?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Click-only interactions with no keyboard alternative
+- Missing or invisible focus indicators
+- Meaning conveyed by color alone (red = error, green = success)
+- Unlabeled form fields or buttons
+- Time-limited actions without extension option
+- Custom components that break screen reader flow
+
+---
+
+## 4. Deliberate Stress Tester — "Riley"
+
+**Profile**: Methodical user who pushes interfaces beyond the happy path. Tests edge cases, tries unexpected inputs, and probes for gaps in the experience.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Tests edge cases intentionally (empty states, long strings, special characters)
+- Submits forms with unexpected data (emoji, RTL text, very long values)
+- Tries to break workflows by navigating backwards, refreshing mid-flow, or opening in multiple tabs
+- Looks for inconsistencies between what the UI promises and what actually happens
+- Documents problems methodically
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- What happens at the edges (0 items, 1000 items, very long text)?
+- Do error states recover gracefully or leave the UI in a broken state?
+- What happens on refresh mid-workflow? Is state preserved?
+- Are there features that appear to work but produce broken results?
+- How does the UI handle unexpected input (emoji, special chars, paste from Excel)?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Features that appear to work but silently fail or produce wrong results
+- Error handling that exposes technical details or leaves UI in a broken state
+- Empty states that show nothing useful ("No results" with no guidance)
+- Workflows that lose user data on refresh or navigation
+- Inconsistent behavior between similar interactions in different parts of the UI
+
+---
+
+## 5. Distracted Mobile User — "Casey"
+
+**Profile**: Using phone one-handed on the go. Frequently interrupted. Possibly on a slow connection.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Uses thumb only — prefers bottom-of-screen actions
+- Gets interrupted mid-flow and returns later
+- Switches between apps frequently
+- Has limited attention span and low patience
+- Types as little as possible, prefers taps and selections
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Are primary actions in the thumb zone (bottom half of screen)?
+- Is state preserved if the user leaves and returns?
+- Does it work on slow connections (3G)?
+- Can forms leverage autocomplete and smart defaults?
+- Are touch targets at least 44×44pt?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Important actions positioned at the top of the screen (unreachable by thumb)
+- No state persistence — progress lost on tab switch or interruption
+- Large text inputs required where selection would work
+- Heavy assets loading on every page (no lazy loading)
+- Tiny tap targets or targets too close together
+
+---
+
+## Selecting Personas
+
+Choose personas based on the interface type:
+
+| Interface Type | Primary Personas | Why |
+|---------------|-----------------|-----|
+| Landing page / marketing | Jordan, Riley, Casey | First impressions, trust, mobile |
+| Dashboard / admin | Alex, Sam | Power users, accessibility |
+| E-commerce / checkout | Casey, Riley, Jordan | Mobile, edge cases, clarity |
+| Onboarding flow | Jordan, Casey | Confusion, interruption |
+| Data-heavy / analytics | Alex, Sam | Efficiency, keyboard nav |
+| Form-heavy / wizard | Jordan, Sam, Casey | Clarity, accessibility, mobile |
+
+---
+
+## Project-Specific Personas
+
+If `.github/copilot-instructions.md` contains a `## Design Context` section (generated by `teach-impeccable`), derive 1–2 additional personas from the audience and brand information:
+
+1. Read the target audience description
+2. Identify the primary user archetype not covered by the 5 predefined personas
+3. Create a persona following this template:
+
+```
+### [Role] — "[Name]"
+
+**Profile**: [2-3 key characteristics derived from Design Context]
+
+**Behaviors**: [3-4 specific behaviors based on the described audience]
+
+**Red Flags**: [3-4 things that would alienate this specific user type]
+```
+
+Only generate project-specific personas when real Design Context data is available. Don't invent audience details — use the 5 predefined personas when no context exists.
diff --git a/.claude/skills/audit/SKILL.md b/.claude/skills/audit/SKILL.md
index b0cee9eaa..1debe043e 100644
--- a/.claude/skills/audit/SKILL.md
+++ b/.claude/skills/audit/SKILL.md
@@ -1,125 +1,147 @@
 ---
 name: audit
-description: Perform a comprehensive audit of interface quality across accessibility, performance, theming, and responsive design. Generates a prioritized report with severity ratings. Use when the user wants a design review, accessibility check, quality audit, or a full list of UI issues to fix.
+description: Run technical quality checks across accessibility, performance, theming, responsive design, and anti-patterns. Generates a scored report with P0-P3 severity ratings and actionable plan. Use when the user wants an accessibility check, performance audit, or technical quality review.
 user-invocable: true
 argument-hint: "[area (feature, page, component...)]"
 ---
 
-Run systematic quality checks and generate a comprehensive audit report with prioritized issues and actionable recommendations. Don't fix issues - document them for other commands to address.
+## MANDATORY PREPARATION
 
-**First**: Invoke /frontend-design for design principles and anti-patterns.
+Invoke /frontend-design — it contains design principles, anti-patterns, and the **Context Gathering Protocol**. Follow the protocol before proceeding — if no design context exists yet, you MUST run /teach-impeccable first.
+
+---
+
+Run systematic **technical** quality checks and generate a comprehensive report. Don't fix issues — document them for other commands to address.
+
+This is a code-level audit, not a design critique. Check what's measurable and verifiable in the implementation.
 
 ## Diagnostic Scan
 
-Run comprehensive checks across multiple dimensions:
+Run comprehensive checks across 5 dimensions. Score each dimension 0-4 using the criteria below.
 
-1. **Accessibility (A11y)** - Check for:
-   - **Contrast issues**: Text contrast ratios < 4.5:1 (or 7:1 for AAA)
-   - **Missing ARIA**: Interactive elements without proper roles, labels, or states
-   - **Keyboard navigation**: Missing focus indicators, illogical tab order, keyboard traps
-   - **Semantic HTML**: Improper heading hierarchy, missing landmarks, divs instead of buttons
-   - **Alt text**: Missing or poor image descriptions
-   - **Form issues**: Inputs without labels, poor error messaging, missing required indicators
+### 1. Accessibility (A11y)
 
-2. **Performance** - Check for:
-   - **Layout thrashing**: Reading/writing layout properties in loops
-   - **Expensive animations**: Animating layout properties (width, height, top, left) instead of transform/opacity
-   - **Missing optimization**: Images without lazy loading, unoptimized assets, missing will-change
-   - **Bundle size**: Unnecessary imports, unused dependencies
-   - **Render performance**: Unnecessary re-renders, missing memoization
+**Check for**:
+- **Contrast issues**: Text contrast ratios < 4.5:1 (or 7:1 for AAA)
+- **Missing ARIA**: Interactive elements without proper roles, labels, or states
+- **Keyboard navigation**: Missing focus indicators, illogical tab order, keyboard traps
+- **Semantic HTML**: Improper heading hierarchy, missing landmarks, divs instead of buttons
+- **Alt text**: Missing or poor image descriptions
+- **Form issues**: Inputs without labels, poor error messaging, missing required indicators
 
-3. **Theming** - Check for:
-   - **Hard-coded colors**: Colors not using design tokens
-   - **Broken dark mode**: Missing dark mode variants, poor contrast in dark theme
-   - **Inconsistent tokens**: Using wrong tokens, mixing token types
-   - **Theme switching issues**: Values that don't update on theme change
+**Score 0-4**: 0=Inaccessible (fails WCAG A), 1=Major gaps (few ARIA labels, no keyboard nav), 2=Partial (some a11y effort, significant gaps), 3=Good (WCAG AA mostly met, minor gaps), 4=Excellent (WCAG AA fully met, approaches AAA)
 
-4. **Responsive Design** - Check for:
-   - **Fixed widths**: Hard-coded widths that break on mobile
-   - **Touch targets**: Interactive elements < 44x44px
-   - **Horizontal scroll**: Content overflow on narrow viewports
-   - **Text scaling**: Layouts that break when text size increases
-   - **Missing breakpoints**: No mobile/tablet variants
+### 2. Performance
 
-5. **Anti-Patterns (CRITICAL)** - Check against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill. Look for AI slop tells (AI color palette, gradient text, glassmorphism, hero metrics, card grids, generic fonts) and general design anti-patterns (gray on color, nested cards, bounce easing, redundant copy).
+**Check for**:
+- **Layout thrashing**: Reading/writing layout properties in loops
+- **Expensive animations**: Animating layout properties (width, height, top, left) instead of transform/opacity
+- **Missing optimization**: Images without lazy loading, unoptimized assets, missing will-change
+- **Bundle size**: Unnecessary imports, unused dependencies
+- **Render performance**: Unnecessary re-renders, missing memoization
 
-**CRITICAL**: This is an audit, not a fix. Document issues thoroughly with clear explanations of impact. Use other commands (normalize, optimize, harden, etc.) to fix issues after audit.
+**Score 0-4**: 0=Severe issues (layout thrash, unoptimized everything), 1=Major problems (no lazy loading, expensive animations), 2=Partial (some optimization, gaps remain), 3=Good (mostly optimized, minor improvements possible), 4=Excellent (fast, lean, well-optimized)
 
-## Generate Comprehensive Report
+### 3. Theming
 
-Create a detailed audit report with the following structure:
+**Check for**:
+- **Hard-coded colors**: Colors not using design tokens
+- **Broken dark mode**: Missing dark mode variants, poor contrast in dark theme
+- **Inconsistent tokens**: Using wrong tokens, mixing token types
+- **Theme switching issues**: Values that don't update on theme change
+
+**Score 0-4**: 0=No theming (hard-coded everything), 1=Minimal tokens (mostly hard-coded), 2=Partial (tokens exist but inconsistently used), 3=Good (tokens used, minor hard-coded values), 4=Excellent (full token system, dark mode works perfectly)
+
+### 4. Responsive Design
+
+**Check for**:
+- **Fixed widths**: Hard-coded widths that break on mobile
+- **Touch targets**: Interactive elements < 44x44px
+- **Horizontal scroll**: Content overflow on narrow viewports
+- **Text scaling**: Layouts that break when text size increases
+- **Missing breakpoints**: No mobile/tablet variants
+
+**Score 0-4**: 0=Desktop-only (breaks on mobile), 1=Major issues (some breakpoints, many failures), 2=Partial (works on mobile, rough edges), 3=Good (responsive, minor touch target or overflow issues), 4=Excellent (fluid, all viewports, proper touch targets)
+
+### 5. Anti-Patterns (CRITICAL)
+
+Check against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill. Look for AI slop tells (AI color palette, gradient text, glassmorphism, hero metrics, card grids, generic fonts) and general design anti-patterns (gray on color, nested cards, bounce easing, redundant copy).
+
+**Score 0-4**: 0=AI slop gallery (5+ tells), 1=Heavy AI aesthetic (3-4 tells), 2=Some tells (1-2 noticeable), 3=Mostly clean (subtle issues only), 4=No AI tells (distinctive, intentional design)
+
+## Generate Report
+
+### Audit Health Score
+
+| # | Dimension | Score | Key Finding |
+|---|-----------|-------|-------------|
+| 1 | Accessibility | ? | [most critical a11y issue or "--"] |
+| 2 | Performance | ? | |
+| 3 | Responsive Design | ? | |
+| 4 | Theming | ? | |
+| 5 | Anti-Patterns | ? | |
+| **Total** | | **??/20** | **[Rating band]** |
+
+**Rating bands**: 18-20 Excellent (minor polish), 14-17 Good (address weak dimensions), 10-13 Acceptable (significant work needed), 6-9 Poor (major overhaul), 0-5 Critical (fundamental issues)
 
 ### Anti-Patterns Verdict
-**Start here.** Pass/fail: Does this look AI-generated? List specific tells from the skill's Anti-Patterns section. Be brutally honest.
+**Start here.** Pass/fail: Does this look AI-generated? List specific tells. Be brutally honest.
 
 ### Executive Summary
-- Total issues found (count by severity)
-- Most critical issues (top 3-5)
-- Overall quality score (if applicable)
+- Audit Health Score: **??/20** ([rating band])
+- Total issues found (count by severity: P0/P1/P2/P3)
+- Top 3-5 critical issues
 - Recommended next steps
 
 ### Detailed Findings by Severity
 
+Tag every issue with **P0-P3 severity**:
+- **P0 Blocking**: Prevents task completion — fix immediately
+- **P1 Major**: Significant difficulty or WCAG AA violation — fix before release
+- **P2 Minor**: Annoyance, workaround exists — fix in next pass
+- **P3 Polish**: Nice-to-fix, no real user impact — fix if time permits
+
 For each issue, document:
-- **Location**: Where the issue occurs (component, file, line)
-- **Severity**: Critical / High / Medium / Low
-- **Category**: Accessibility / Performance / Theming / Responsive
-- **Description**: What the issue is
+- **[P?] Issue name**
+- **Location**: Component, file, line
+- **Category**: Accessibility / Performance / Theming / Responsive / Anti-Pattern
 - **Impact**: How it affects users
 - **WCAG/Standard**: Which standard it violates (if applicable)
 - **Recommendation**: How to fix it
-- **Suggested command**: Which command to use (prefer: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive — or other installed skills you're sure exist)
-
-#### Critical Issues
-[Issues that block core functionality or violate WCAG A]
-
-#### High-Severity Issues  
-[Significant usability/accessibility impact, WCAG AA violations]
-
-#### Medium-Severity Issues
-[Quality issues, WCAG AAA violations, performance concerns]
-
-#### Low-Severity Issues
-[Minor inconsistencies, optimization opportunities]
+- **Suggested command**: Which command to use (prefer: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive)
 
 ### Patterns & Systemic Issues
 
-Identify recurring problems:
+Identify recurring problems that indicate systemic gaps rather than one-off mistakes:
 - "Hard-coded colors appear in 15+ components, should use design tokens"
 - "Touch targets consistently too small (<44px) throughout mobile experience"
-- "Missing focus indicators on all custom interactive components"
 
 ### Positive Findings
 
-Note what's working well:
-- Good practices to maintain
-- Exemplary implementations to replicate elsewhere
+Note what's working well — good practices to maintain and replicate.
 
-### Recommendations by Priority
+## Recommended Actions
 
-Create actionable plan:
-1. **Immediate**: Critical blockers to fix first
-2. **Short-term**: High-severity issues (this sprint)
-3. **Medium-term**: Quality improvements (next sprint)
-4. **Long-term**: Nice-to-haves and optimizations
+List recommended commands in priority order (P0 first, then P1, then P2):
 
-### Suggested Commands for Fixes
+1. **[P?] `/command-name`** — Brief description (specific context from audit findings)
+2. **[P?] `/command-name`** — Brief description (specific context)
 
-Map issues to available commands. Prefer these: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive. You may also suggest other installed skills you're sure exist, but never invent commands.
+**Rules**: Only recommend commands from: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive. Map findings to the most appropriate command. End with `/polish` as the final step if any fixes were recommended.
 
-Examples:
-- "Use `/normalize` to align with design system (addresses N theming issues)"
-- "Use `/optimize` to improve performance (addresses N performance issues)"
-- "Use `/harden` to improve resilience (addresses N edge cases)"
+After presenting the summary, tell the user:
 
-**IMPORTANT**: Be thorough but actionable. Too many low-priority issues creates noise. Focus on what actually matters.
+> You can ask me to run these one at a time, all at once, or in any order you prefer.
+>
+> Re-run `/audit` after fixes to see your score improve.
+
+**IMPORTANT**: Be thorough but actionable. Too many P3 issues creates noise. Focus on what actually matters.
 
 **NEVER**:
 - Report issues without explaining impact (why does this matter?)
-- Mix severity levels inconsistently
-- Skip positive findings (celebrate what works)
 - Provide generic recommendations (be specific and actionable)
-- Forget to prioritize (everything can't be critical)
+- Skip positive findings (celebrate what works)
+- Forget to prioritize (everything can't be P0)
 - Report false positives without verification
 
-Remember: You're a quality auditor with exceptional attention to detail. Document systematically, prioritize ruthlessly, and provide clear paths to improvement. A good audit makes fixing easy.
\ No newline at end of file
+Remember: You're a technical quality auditor. Document systematically, prioritize ruthlessly, cite specific code locations, and provide clear paths to improvement.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/.claude/skills/critique/SKILL.md b/.claude/skills/critique/SKILL.md
index 29806cd81..2c8e073ed 100644
--- a/.claude/skills/critique/SKILL.md
+++ b/.claude/skills/critique/SKILL.md
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 name: critique
-description: Evaluate design effectiveness from a UX perspective. Assesses visual hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, and overall design quality with actionable feedback. Use when the user asks to review, critique, evaluate, audit, or give feedback on a design, UI, or component.
+description: Evaluate design from a UX perspective, assessing visual hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, cognitive load, and overall quality with quantitative scoring, persona-based testing, and actionable feedback. Use when the user asks to review, critique, evaluate, or give feedback on a design or component.
 user-invocable: true
 argument-hint: "[area (feature, page, component...)]"
 ---
@@ -11,9 +11,9 @@ Invoke /frontend-design — it contains design principles, anti-patterns, and th
 
 ---
 
-Conduct a holistic design critique, evaluating whether the interface actually works—not just technically, but as a designed experience. Think like a design director giving feedback.
+Conduct a holistic design critique, evaluating whether the interface actually works — not just technically, but as a designed experience. Think like a design director giving feedback.
 
-## Design Critique
+## Phase 1: Design Critique
 
 Evaluate the interface across these dimensions:
 
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ Evaluate the interface across these dimensions:
 
 **This is the most important check.** Does this look like every other AI-generated interface from 2024-2025?
 
-Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill—they are the fingerprints of AI-generated work. Check for the AI color palette, gradient text, dark mode with glowing accents, glassmorphism, hero metric layouts, identical card grids, generic fonts, and all other tells.
+Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill — they are the fingerprints of AI-generated work. Check for the AI color palette, gradient text, dark mode with glowing accents, glassmorphism, hero metric layouts, identical card grids, generic fonts, and all other tells.
 
 **The test**: If you showed this to someone and said "AI made this," would they believe you immediately? If yes, that's the problem.
 
@@ -31,17 +31,23 @@ Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design sk
 - Do size, color, and position communicate importance correctly?
 - Is there visual competition between elements that should have different weights?
 
-### 3. Information Architecture
+### 3. Information Architecture & Cognitive Load
+> *Consult [cognitive-load](reference/cognitive-load.md) for the working memory rule and 8-item checklist*
 - Is the structure intuitive? Would a new user understand the organization?
 - Is related content grouped logically?
-- Are there too many choices at once? (cognitive overload)
+- Are there too many choices at once? Count visible options at each decision point — if >4, flag it
 - Is the navigation clear and predictable?
+- **Progressive disclosure**: Is complexity revealed only when needed, or dumped on the user upfront?
+- **Run the 8-item cognitive load checklist** from the reference. Report failure count: 0–1 = low (good), 2–3 = moderate, 4+ = critical.
 
-### 4. Emotional Resonance
+### 4. Emotional Journey
 - What emotion does this interface evoke? Is that intentional?
 - Does it match the brand personality?
-- Does it feel trustworthy, approachable, premium, playful—whatever it should feel?
+- Does it feel trustworthy, approachable, premium, playful — whatever it should feel?
 - Would the target user feel "this is for me"?
+- **Peak-end rule**: Is the most intense moment positive? Does the experience end well (confirmation, celebration, clear next step)?
+- **Emotional valleys**: Check for onboarding frustration, error cliffs, feature discovery gaps, or anxiety spikes at high-stakes moments (payment, delete, commit)
+- **Interventions at negative moments**: Are there design interventions where users are likely to feel frustrated or anxious? (progress indicators, reassurance copy, undo options, social proof)
 
 ### 5. Discoverability & Affordance
 - Are interactive elements obviously interactive?
@@ -65,7 +71,7 @@ Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design sk
 - Is color used to communicate, not just decorate?
 - Does the palette feel cohesive?
 - Are accent colors drawing attention to the right things?
-- Does it work for colorblind users? (not just technically—does meaning still come through?)
+- Does it work for colorblind users? (not just technically — does meaning still come through?)
 
 ### 9. States & Edge Cases
 - Empty states: Do they guide users toward action, or just say "nothing here"?
@@ -79,41 +85,117 @@ Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design sk
 - Are labels and buttons unambiguous?
 - Does error copy help users fix the problem?
 
-## Generate Critique Report
+## Phase 2: Present Findings
 
 Structure your feedback as a design director would:
 
+### Design Health Score
+> *Consult [heuristics-scoring](reference/heuristics-scoring.md)*
+
+Score each of Nielsen's 10 heuristics 0–4. Present as a table:
+
+| # | Heuristic | Score | Key Issue |
+|---|-----------|-------|-----------|
+| 1 | Visibility of System Status | ? | [specific finding or "—" if solid] |
+| 2 | Match System / Real World | ? | |
+| 3 | User Control and Freedom | ? | |
+| 4 | Consistency and Standards | ? | |
+| 5 | Error Prevention | ? | |
+| 6 | Recognition Rather Than Recall | ? | |
+| 7 | Flexibility and Efficiency | ? | |
+| 8 | Aesthetic and Minimalist Design | ? | |
+| 9 | Error Recovery | ? | |
+| 10 | Help and Documentation | ? | |
+| **Total** | | **??/40** | **[Rating band]** |
+
+Be honest with scores. A 4 means genuinely excellent. Most real interfaces score 20–32.
+
 ### Anti-Patterns Verdict
 **Start here.** Pass/fail: Does this look AI-generated? List specific tells from the skill's Anti-Patterns section. Be brutally honest.
 
 ### Overall Impression
-A brief gut reaction—what works, what doesn't, and the single biggest opportunity.
+A brief gut reaction — what works, what doesn't, and the single biggest opportunity.
 
 ### What's Working
-Highlight 2-3 things done well. Be specific about why they work.
+Highlight 2–3 things done well. Be specific about why they work.
 
 ### Priority Issues
-The 3-5 most impactful design problems, ordered by importance:
+The 3–5 most impactful design problems, ordered by importance.
 
-For each issue:
-- **What**: Name the problem clearly
+For each issue, tag with **P0–P3 severity** (consult [heuristics-scoring](reference/heuristics-scoring.md) for severity definitions):
+- **[P?] What**: Name the problem clearly
 - **Why it matters**: How this hurts users or undermines goals
 - **Fix**: What to do about it (be concrete)
-- **Command**: Which command to use (prefer: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive — or other installed skills you're sure exist)
+- **Suggested command**: Which command could address this (from: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive)
+
+### Persona Red Flags
+> *Consult [personas](reference/personas.md)*
+
+Auto-select 2–3 personas most relevant to this interface type (use the selection table in the reference). If `CLAUDE.md` contains a `## Design Context` section from `teach-impeccable`, also generate 1–2 project-specific personas from the audience/brand info.
+
+For each selected persona, walk through the primary user action and list specific red flags found:
+
+**Alex (Power User)**: No keyboard shortcuts detected. Form requires 8 clicks for primary action. Forced modal onboarding. ⚠️ High abandonment risk.
+
+**Jordan (First-Timer)**: Icon-only nav in sidebar. Technical jargon in error messages ("404 Not Found"). No visible help. ⚠️ Will abandon at step 2.
+
+Be specific — name the exact elements and interactions that fail each persona. Don't write generic persona descriptions; write what broke for them.
 
 ### Minor Observations
 Quick notes on smaller issues worth addressing.
 
-### Questions to Consider
-Provocative questions that might unlock better solutions:
-- "What if the primary action were more prominent?"
-- "Does this need to feel this complex?"
-- "What would a confident version of this look like?"
-
 **Remember**:
-- Be direct—vague feedback wastes everyone's time
-- Be specific—"the submit button" not "some elements"
+- Be direct — vague feedback wastes everyone's time
+- Be specific — "the submit button" not "some elements"
 - Say what's wrong AND why it matters to users
 - Give concrete suggestions, not just "consider exploring..."
-- Prioritize ruthlessly—if everything is important, nothing is
-- Don't soften criticism—developers need honest feedback to ship great design
\ No newline at end of file
+- Prioritize ruthlessly — if everything is important, nothing is
+- Don't soften criticism — developers need honest feedback to ship great design
+
+## Phase 3: Ask the User
+
+**After presenting findings**, use targeted questions based on what was actually found. STOP and call the AskUserQuestion tool to clarify. These answers will shape the action plan.
+
+Ask questions along these lines (adapt to the specific findings — do NOT ask generic questions):
+
+1. **Priority direction**: Based on the issues found, ask which category matters most to the user right now. For example: "I found problems with visual hierarchy, color usage, and information overload. Which area should we tackle first?" Offer the top 2–3 issue categories as options.
+
+2. **Design intent**: If the critique found a tonal mismatch, ask whether it was intentional. For example: "The interface feels clinical and corporate. Is that the intended tone, or should it feel warmer/bolder/more playful?" Offer 2–3 tonal directions as options based on what would fix the issues found.
+
+3. **Scope**: Ask how much the user wants to take on. For example: "I found N issues. Want to address everything, or focus on the top 3?" Offer scope options like "Top 3 only", "All issues", "Critical issues only".
+
+4. **Constraints** (optional — only ask if relevant): If the findings touch many areas, ask if anything is off-limits. For example: "Should any sections stay as-is?" This prevents the plan from touching things the user considers done.
+
+**Rules for questions**:
+- Every question must reference specific findings from Phase 2 — never ask generic "who is your audience?" questions
+- Keep it to 2–4 questions maximum — respect the user's time
+- Offer concrete options, not open-ended prompts
+- If findings are straightforward (e.g., only 1–2 clear issues), skip questions and go directly to Phase 4
+
+## Phase 4: Recommended Actions
+
+**After receiving the user's answers**, present a prioritized action summary reflecting the user's priorities and scope from Phase 3.
+
+### Action Summary
+
+List recommended commands in priority order, based on the user's answers:
+
+1. **`/command-name`** — Brief description of what to fix (specific context from critique findings)
+2. **`/command-name`** — Brief description (specific context)
+...
+
+**Rules for recommendations**:
+- Only recommend commands from: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive
+- Order by the user's stated priorities first, then by impact
+- Each item's description should carry enough context that the command knows what to focus on
+- Map each Priority Issue to the appropriate command
+- Skip commands that would address zero issues
+- If the user chose a limited scope, only include items within that scope
+- If the user marked areas as off-limits, exclude commands that would touch those areas
+- End with `/polish` as the final step if any fixes were recommended
+
+After presenting the summary, tell the user:
+
+> You can ask me to run these one at a time, all at once, or in any order you prefer.
+>
+> Re-run `/critique` after fixes to see your score improve.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/.claude/skills/critique/reference/cognitive-load.md b/.claude/skills/critique/reference/cognitive-load.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..313df166b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.claude/skills/critique/reference/cognitive-load.md
@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+# Cognitive Load Assessment
+
+Cognitive load is the total mental effort required to use an interface. Overloaded users make mistakes, get frustrated, and leave. This reference helps identify and fix cognitive overload.
+
+---
+
+## Three Types of Cognitive Load
+
+### Intrinsic Load — The Task Itself
+Complexity inherent to what the user is trying to do. You can't eliminate this, but you can structure it.
+
+**Manage it by**:
+- Breaking complex tasks into discrete steps
+- Providing scaffolding (templates, defaults, examples)
+- Progressive disclosure — show what's needed now, hide the rest
+- Grouping related decisions together
+
+### Extraneous Load — Bad Design
+Mental effort caused by poor design choices. **Eliminate this ruthlessly** — it's pure waste.
+
+**Common sources**:
+- Confusing navigation that requires mental mapping
+- Unclear labels that force users to guess meaning
+- Visual clutter competing for attention
+- Inconsistent patterns that prevent learning
+- Unnecessary steps between user intent and result
+
+### Germane Load — Learning Effort
+Mental effort spent building understanding. This is *good* cognitive load — it leads to mastery.
+
+**Support it by**:
+- Progressive disclosure that reveals complexity gradually
+- Consistent patterns that reward learning
+- Feedback that confirms correct understanding
+- Onboarding that teaches through action, not walls of text
+
+---
+
+## Cognitive Load Checklist
+
+Evaluate the interface against these 8 items:
+
+- [ ] **Single focus**: Can the user complete their primary task without distraction from competing elements?
+- [ ] **Chunking**: Is information presented in digestible groups (≤4 items per group)?
+- [ ] **Grouping**: Are related items visually grouped together (proximity, borders, shared background)?
+- [ ] **Visual hierarchy**: Is it immediately clear what's most important on the screen?
+- [ ] **One thing at a time**: Can the user focus on a single decision before moving to the next?
+- [ ] **Minimal choices**: Are decisions simplified (≤4 visible options at any decision point)?
+- [ ] **Working memory**: Does the user need to remember information from a previous screen to act on the current one?
+- [ ] **Progressive disclosure**: Is complexity revealed only when the user needs it?
+
+**Scoring**: Count the failed items. 0–1 failures = low cognitive load (good). 2–3 = moderate (address soon). 4+ = high cognitive load (critical fix needed).
+
+---
+
+## The Working Memory Rule
+
+**Humans can hold ≤4 items in working memory at once** (Miller's Law revised by Cowan, 2001).
+
+At any decision point, count the number of distinct options, actions, or pieces of information a user must simultaneously consider:
+- **≤4 items**: Within working memory limits — manageable
+- **5–7 items**: Pushing the boundary — consider grouping or progressive disclosure
+- **8+ items**: Overloaded — users will skip, misclick, or abandon
+
+**Practical applications**:
+- Navigation menus: ≤5 top-level items (group the rest under clear categories)
+- Form sections: ≤4 fields visible per group before a visual break
+- Action buttons: 1 primary, 1–2 secondary, group the rest in a menu
+- Dashboard widgets: ≤4 key metrics visible without scrolling
+- Pricing tiers: ≤3 options (more causes analysis paralysis)
+
+---
+
+## Common Cognitive Load Violations
+
+### 1. The Wall of Options
+**Problem**: Presenting 10+ choices at once with no hierarchy.
+**Fix**: Group into categories, highlight recommended, use progressive disclosure.
+
+### 2. The Memory Bridge
+**Problem**: User must remember info from step 1 to complete step 3.
+**Fix**: Keep relevant context visible, or repeat it where it's needed.
+
+### 3. The Hidden Navigation
+**Problem**: User must build a mental map of where things are.
+**Fix**: Always show current location (breadcrumbs, active states, progress indicators).
+
+### 4. The Jargon Barrier
+**Problem**: Technical or domain language forces translation effort.
+**Fix**: Use plain language. If domain terms are unavoidable, define them inline.
+
+### 5. The Visual Noise Floor
+**Problem**: Every element has the same visual weight — nothing stands out.
+**Fix**: Establish clear hierarchy: one primary element, 2–3 secondary, everything else muted.
+
+### 6. The Inconsistent Pattern
+**Problem**: Similar actions work differently in different places.
+**Fix**: Standardize interaction patterns. Same type of action = same type of UI.
+
+### 7. The Multi-Task Demand
+**Problem**: Interface requires processing multiple simultaneous inputs (reading + deciding + navigating).
+**Fix**: Sequence the steps. Let the user do one thing at a time.
+
+### 8. The Context Switch
+**Problem**: User must jump between screens/tabs/modals to gather info for a single decision.
+**Fix**: Co-locate the information needed for each decision. Reduce back-and-forth.
diff --git a/.claude/skills/critique/reference/heuristics-scoring.md b/.claude/skills/critique/reference/heuristics-scoring.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..fd5b1b08b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.claude/skills/critique/reference/heuristics-scoring.md
@@ -0,0 +1,234 @@
+# Heuristics Scoring Guide
+
+Score each of Nielsen's 10 Usability Heuristics on a 0–4 scale. Be honest — a 4 means genuinely excellent, not "good enough."
+
+## Nielsen's 10 Heuristics
+
+### 1. Visibility of System Status
+
+Keep users informed about what's happening through timely, appropriate feedback.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Loading indicators during async operations
+- Confirmation of user actions (save, submit, delete)
+- Progress indicators for multi-step processes
+- Current location in navigation (breadcrumbs, active states)
+- Form validation feedback (inline, not just on submit)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | No feedback — user is guessing what happened |
+| 1 | Rare feedback — most actions produce no visible response |
+| 2 | Partial — some states communicated, major gaps remain |
+| 3 | Good — most operations give clear feedback, minor gaps |
+| 4 | Excellent — every action confirms, progress is always visible |
+
+### 2. Match Between System and Real World
+
+Speak the user's language. Follow real-world conventions. Information appears in natural, logical order.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Familiar terminology (no unexplained jargon)
+- Logical information order matching user expectations
+- Recognizable icons and metaphors
+- Domain-appropriate language for the target audience
+- Natural reading flow (left-to-right, top-to-bottom priority)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Pure tech jargon, alien to users |
+| 1 | Mostly confusing — requires domain expertise to navigate |
+| 2 | Mixed — some plain language, some jargon leaks through |
+| 3 | Mostly natural — occasional term needs context |
+| 4 | Speaks the user's language fluently throughout |
+
+### 3. User Control and Freedom
+
+Users need a clear "emergency exit" from unwanted states without extended dialogue.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Undo/redo functionality
+- Cancel buttons on forms and modals
+- Clear navigation back to safety (home, previous)
+- Easy way to clear filters, search, selections
+- Escape from long or multi-step processes
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Users get trapped — no way out without refreshing |
+| 1 | Difficult exits — must find obscure paths to escape |
+| 2 | Some exits — main flows have escape, edge cases don't |
+| 3 | Good control — users can exit and undo most actions |
+| 4 | Full control — undo, cancel, back, and escape everywhere |
+
+### 4. Consistency and Standards
+
+Users shouldn't wonder whether different words, situations, or actions mean the same thing.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Consistent terminology throughout the interface
+- Same actions produce same results everywhere
+- Platform conventions followed (standard UI patterns)
+- Visual consistency (colors, typography, spacing, components)
+- Consistent interaction patterns (same gesture = same behavior)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Inconsistent everywhere — feels like different products stitched together |
+| 1 | Many inconsistencies — similar things look/behave differently |
+| 2 | Partially consistent — main flows match, details diverge |
+| 3 | Mostly consistent — occasional deviation, nothing confusing |
+| 4 | Fully consistent — cohesive system, predictable behavior |
+
+### 5. Error Prevention
+
+Better than good error messages is a design that prevents problems in the first place.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Confirmation before destructive actions (delete, overwrite)
+- Constraints preventing invalid input (date pickers, dropdowns)
+- Smart defaults that reduce errors
+- Clear labels that prevent misunderstanding
+- Autosave and draft recovery
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Errors easy to make — no guardrails anywhere |
+| 1 | Few safeguards — some inputs validated, most aren't |
+| 2 | Partial prevention — common errors caught, edge cases slip |
+| 3 | Good prevention — most error paths blocked proactively |
+| 4 | Excellent — errors nearly impossible through smart constraints |
+
+### 6. Recognition Rather Than Recall
+
+Minimize memory load. Make objects, actions, and options visible or easily retrievable.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Visible options (not buried in hidden menus)
+- Contextual help when needed (tooltips, inline hints)
+- Recent items and history
+- Autocomplete and suggestions
+- Labels on icons (not icon-only navigation)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Heavy memorization — users must remember paths and commands |
+| 1 | Mostly recall — many hidden features, few visible cues |
+| 2 | Some aids — main actions visible, secondary features hidden |
+| 3 | Good recognition — most things discoverable, few memory demands |
+| 4 | Everything discoverable — users never need to memorize |
+
+### 7. Flexibility and Efficiency of Use
+
+Accelerators — invisible to novices — speed up expert interaction.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Keyboard shortcuts for common actions
+- Customizable interface elements
+- Recent items and favorites
+- Bulk/batch actions
+- Power user features that don't complicate the basics
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | One rigid path — no shortcuts or alternatives |
+| 1 | Limited flexibility — few alternatives to the main path |
+| 2 | Some shortcuts — basic keyboard support, limited bulk actions |
+| 3 | Good accelerators — keyboard nav, some customization |
+| 4 | Highly flexible — multiple paths, power features, customizable |
+
+### 8. Aesthetic and Minimalist Design
+
+Interfaces should not contain irrelevant or rarely needed information. Every element should serve a purpose.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Only necessary information visible at each step
+- Clear visual hierarchy directing attention
+- Purposeful use of color and emphasis
+- No decorative clutter competing for attention
+- Focused, uncluttered layouts
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Overwhelming — everything competes for attention equally |
+| 1 | Cluttered — too much noise, hard to find what matters |
+| 2 | Some clutter — main content clear, periphery noisy |
+| 3 | Mostly clean — focused design, minor visual noise |
+| 4 | Perfectly minimal — every element earns its pixel |
+
+### 9. Help Users Recognize, Diagnose, and Recover from Errors
+
+Error messages should use plain language, precisely indicate the problem, and constructively suggest a solution.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Plain language error messages (no error codes for users)
+- Specific problem identification ("Email is missing @" not "Invalid input")
+- Actionable recovery suggestions
+- Errors displayed near the source of the problem
+- Non-blocking error handling (don't wipe the form)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Cryptic errors — codes, jargon, or no message at all |
+| 1 | Vague errors — "Something went wrong" with no guidance |
+| 2 | Clear but unhelpful — names the problem but not the fix |
+| 3 | Clear with suggestions — identifies problem and offers next steps |
+| 4 | Perfect recovery — pinpoints issue, suggests fix, preserves user work |
+
+### 10. Help and Documentation
+
+Even if the system is usable without docs, help should be easy to find, task-focused, and concise.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Searchable help or documentation
+- Contextual help (tooltips, inline hints, guided tours)
+- Task-focused organization (not feature-organized)
+- Concise, scannable content
+- Easy access without leaving current context
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | No help available anywhere |
+| 1 | Help exists but hard to find or irrelevant |
+| 2 | Basic help — FAQ or docs exist, not contextual |
+| 3 | Good documentation — searchable, mostly task-focused |
+| 4 | Excellent contextual help — right info at the right moment |
+
+---
+
+## Score Summary
+
+**Total possible**: 40 points (10 heuristics × 4 max)
+
+| Score Range | Rating | What It Means |
+|-------------|--------|---------------|
+| 36–40 | Excellent | Minor polish only — ship it |
+| 28–35 | Good | Address weak areas, solid foundation |
+| 20–27 | Acceptable | Significant improvements needed before users are happy |
+| 12–19 | Poor | Major UX overhaul required — core experience broken |
+| 0–11 | Critical | Redesign needed — unusable in current state |
+
+---
+
+## Issue Severity (P0–P3)
+
+Tag each individual issue found during scoring with a priority level:
+
+| Priority | Name | Description | Action |
+|----------|------|-------------|--------|
+| **P0** | Blocking | Prevents task completion entirely | Fix immediately — this is a showstopper |
+| **P1** | Major | Causes significant difficulty or confusion | Fix before release |
+| **P2** | Minor | Annoyance, but workaround exists | Fix in next pass |
+| **P3** | Polish | Nice-to-fix, no real user impact | Fix if time permits |
+
+**Tip**: If you're unsure between two levels, ask: "Would a user contact support about this?" If yes, it's at least P1.
diff --git a/.claude/skills/critique/reference/personas.md b/.claude/skills/critique/reference/personas.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..1960220aa
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.claude/skills/critique/reference/personas.md
@@ -0,0 +1,178 @@
+# Persona-Based Design Testing
+
+Test the interface through the eyes of 5 distinct user archetypes. Each persona exposes different failure modes that a single "design director" perspective would miss.
+
+**How to use**: Select 2–3 personas most relevant to the interface being critiqued. Walk through the primary user action as each persona. Report specific red flags — not generic concerns.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Impatient Power User — "Alex"
+
+**Profile**: Expert with similar products. Expects efficiency, hates hand-holding. Will find shortcuts or leave.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Skips all onboarding and instructions
+- Looks for keyboard shortcuts immediately
+- Tries to bulk-select, batch-edit, and automate
+- Gets frustrated by required steps that feel unnecessary
+- Abandons if anything feels slow or patronizing
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Can Alex complete the core task in under 60 seconds?
+- Are there keyboard shortcuts for common actions?
+- Can onboarding be skipped entirely?
+- Do modals have keyboard dismiss (Esc)?
+- Is there a "power user" path (shortcuts, bulk actions)?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Forced tutorials or unskippable onboarding
+- No keyboard navigation for primary actions
+- Slow animations that can't be skipped
+- One-item-at-a-time workflows where batch would be natural
+- Redundant confirmation steps for low-risk actions
+
+---
+
+## 2. Confused First-Timer — "Jordan"
+
+**Profile**: Never used this type of product. Needs guidance at every step. Will abandon rather than figure it out.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Reads all instructions carefully
+- Hesitates before clicking anything unfamiliar
+- Looks for help or support constantly
+- Misunderstands jargon and abbreviations
+- Takes the most literal interpretation of any label
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Is the first action obviously clear within 5 seconds?
+- Are all icons labeled with text?
+- Is there contextual help at decision points?
+- Does terminology assume prior knowledge?
+- Is there a clear "back" or "undo" at every step?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Icon-only navigation with no labels
+- Technical jargon without explanation
+- No visible help option or guidance
+- Ambiguous next steps after completing an action
+- No confirmation that an action succeeded
+
+---
+
+## 3. Accessibility-Dependent User — "Sam"
+
+**Profile**: Uses screen reader (VoiceOver/NVDA), keyboard-only navigation. May have low vision, motor impairment, or cognitive differences.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Tabs through the interface linearly
+- Relies on ARIA labels and heading structure
+- Cannot see hover states or visual-only indicators
+- Needs adequate color contrast (4.5:1 minimum)
+- May use browser zoom up to 200%
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Can the entire primary flow be completed keyboard-only?
+- Are all interactive elements focusable with visible focus indicators?
+- Do images have meaningful alt text?
+- Is color contrast WCAG AA compliant (4.5:1 for text)?
+- Does the screen reader announce state changes (loading, success, errors)?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Click-only interactions with no keyboard alternative
+- Missing or invisible focus indicators
+- Meaning conveyed by color alone (red = error, green = success)
+- Unlabeled form fields or buttons
+- Time-limited actions without extension option
+- Custom components that break screen reader flow
+
+---
+
+## 4. Deliberate Stress Tester — "Riley"
+
+**Profile**: Methodical user who pushes interfaces beyond the happy path. Tests edge cases, tries unexpected inputs, and probes for gaps in the experience.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Tests edge cases intentionally (empty states, long strings, special characters)
+- Submits forms with unexpected data (emoji, RTL text, very long values)
+- Tries to break workflows by navigating backwards, refreshing mid-flow, or opening in multiple tabs
+- Looks for inconsistencies between what the UI promises and what actually happens
+- Documents problems methodically
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- What happens at the edges (0 items, 1000 items, very long text)?
+- Do error states recover gracefully or leave the UI in a broken state?
+- What happens on refresh mid-workflow? Is state preserved?
+- Are there features that appear to work but produce broken results?
+- How does the UI handle unexpected input (emoji, special chars, paste from Excel)?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Features that appear to work but silently fail or produce wrong results
+- Error handling that exposes technical details or leaves UI in a broken state
+- Empty states that show nothing useful ("No results" with no guidance)
+- Workflows that lose user data on refresh or navigation
+- Inconsistent behavior between similar interactions in different parts of the UI
+
+---
+
+## 5. Distracted Mobile User — "Casey"
+
+**Profile**: Using phone one-handed on the go. Frequently interrupted. Possibly on a slow connection.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Uses thumb only — prefers bottom-of-screen actions
+- Gets interrupted mid-flow and returns later
+- Switches between apps frequently
+- Has limited attention span and low patience
+- Types as little as possible, prefers taps and selections
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Are primary actions in the thumb zone (bottom half of screen)?
+- Is state preserved if the user leaves and returns?
+- Does it work on slow connections (3G)?
+- Can forms leverage autocomplete and smart defaults?
+- Are touch targets at least 44×44pt?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Important actions positioned at the top of the screen (unreachable by thumb)
+- No state persistence — progress lost on tab switch or interruption
+- Large text inputs required where selection would work
+- Heavy assets loading on every page (no lazy loading)
+- Tiny tap targets or targets too close together
+
+---
+
+## Selecting Personas
+
+Choose personas based on the interface type:
+
+| Interface Type | Primary Personas | Why |
+|---------------|-----------------|-----|
+| Landing page / marketing | Jordan, Riley, Casey | First impressions, trust, mobile |
+| Dashboard / admin | Alex, Sam | Power users, accessibility |
+| E-commerce / checkout | Casey, Riley, Jordan | Mobile, edge cases, clarity |
+| Onboarding flow | Jordan, Casey | Confusion, interruption |
+| Data-heavy / analytics | Alex, Sam | Efficiency, keyboard nav |
+| Form-heavy / wizard | Jordan, Sam, Casey | Clarity, accessibility, mobile |
+
+---
+
+## Project-Specific Personas
+
+If `CLAUDE.md` contains a `## Design Context` section (generated by `teach-impeccable`), derive 1–2 additional personas from the audience and brand information:
+
+1. Read the target audience description
+2. Identify the primary user archetype not covered by the 5 predefined personas
+3. Create a persona following this template:
+
+```
+### [Role] — "[Name]"
+
+**Profile**: [2-3 key characteristics derived from Design Context]
+
+**Behaviors**: [3-4 specific behaviors based on the described audience]
+
+**Red Flags**: [3-4 things that would alienate this specific user type]
+```
+
+Only generate project-specific personas when real Design Context data is available. Don't invent audience details — use the 5 predefined personas when no context exists.
diff --git a/.codex/skills/audit/SKILL.md b/.codex/skills/audit/SKILL.md
index 700e98f63..def1967dc 100644
--- a/.codex/skills/audit/SKILL.md
+++ b/.codex/skills/audit/SKILL.md
@@ -1,124 +1,146 @@
 ---
 name: audit
-description: Perform a comprehensive audit of interface quality across accessibility, performance, theming, and responsive design. Generates a prioritized report with severity ratings. Use when the user wants a design review, accessibility check, quality audit, or a full list of UI issues to fix.
+description: Run technical quality checks across accessibility, performance, theming, responsive design, and anti-patterns. Generates a scored report with P0-P3 severity ratings and actionable plan. Use when the user wants an accessibility check, performance audit, or technical quality review.
 argument-hint: "[area (feature, page, component...)]"
 ---
 
-Run systematic quality checks and generate a comprehensive audit report with prioritized issues and actionable recommendations. Don't fix issues - document them for other commands to address.
+## MANDATORY PREPARATION
 
-**First**: Invoke $frontend-design for design principles and anti-patterns.
+Invoke $frontend-design — it contains design principles, anti-patterns, and the **Context Gathering Protocol**. Follow the protocol before proceeding — if no design context exists yet, you MUST run $teach-impeccable first.
+
+---
+
+Run systematic **technical** quality checks and generate a comprehensive report. Don't fix issues — document them for other commands to address.
+
+This is a code-level audit, not a design critique. Check what's measurable and verifiable in the implementation.
 
 ## Diagnostic Scan
 
-Run comprehensive checks across multiple dimensions:
+Run comprehensive checks across 5 dimensions. Score each dimension 0-4 using the criteria below.
 
-1. **Accessibility (A11y)** - Check for:
-   - **Contrast issues**: Text contrast ratios < 4.5:1 (or 7:1 for AAA)
-   - **Missing ARIA**: Interactive elements without proper roles, labels, or states
-   - **Keyboard navigation**: Missing focus indicators, illogical tab order, keyboard traps
-   - **Semantic HTML**: Improper heading hierarchy, missing landmarks, divs instead of buttons
-   - **Alt text**: Missing or poor image descriptions
-   - **Form issues**: Inputs without labels, poor error messaging, missing required indicators
+### 1. Accessibility (A11y)
 
-2. **Performance** - Check for:
-   - **Layout thrashing**: Reading/writing layout properties in loops
-   - **Expensive animations**: Animating layout properties (width, height, top, left) instead of transform/opacity
-   - **Missing optimization**: Images without lazy loading, unoptimized assets, missing will-change
-   - **Bundle size**: Unnecessary imports, unused dependencies
-   - **Render performance**: Unnecessary re-renders, missing memoization
+**Check for**:
+- **Contrast issues**: Text contrast ratios < 4.5:1 (or 7:1 for AAA)
+- **Missing ARIA**: Interactive elements without proper roles, labels, or states
+- **Keyboard navigation**: Missing focus indicators, illogical tab order, keyboard traps
+- **Semantic HTML**: Improper heading hierarchy, missing landmarks, divs instead of buttons
+- **Alt text**: Missing or poor image descriptions
+- **Form issues**: Inputs without labels, poor error messaging, missing required indicators
 
-3. **Theming** - Check for:
-   - **Hard-coded colors**: Colors not using design tokens
-   - **Broken dark mode**: Missing dark mode variants, poor contrast in dark theme
-   - **Inconsistent tokens**: Using wrong tokens, mixing token types
-   - **Theme switching issues**: Values that don't update on theme change
+**Score 0-4**: 0=Inaccessible (fails WCAG A), 1=Major gaps (few ARIA labels, no keyboard nav), 2=Partial (some a11y effort, significant gaps), 3=Good (WCAG AA mostly met, minor gaps), 4=Excellent (WCAG AA fully met, approaches AAA)
 
-4. **Responsive Design** - Check for:
-   - **Fixed widths**: Hard-coded widths that break on mobile
-   - **Touch targets**: Interactive elements < 44x44px
-   - **Horizontal scroll**: Content overflow on narrow viewports
-   - **Text scaling**: Layouts that break when text size increases
-   - **Missing breakpoints**: No mobile/tablet variants
+### 2. Performance
 
-5. **Anti-Patterns (CRITICAL)** - Check against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill. Look for AI slop tells (AI color palette, gradient text, glassmorphism, hero metrics, card grids, generic fonts) and general design anti-patterns (gray on color, nested cards, bounce easing, redundant copy).
+**Check for**:
+- **Layout thrashing**: Reading/writing layout properties in loops
+- **Expensive animations**: Animating layout properties (width, height, top, left) instead of transform/opacity
+- **Missing optimization**: Images without lazy loading, unoptimized assets, missing will-change
+- **Bundle size**: Unnecessary imports, unused dependencies
+- **Render performance**: Unnecessary re-renders, missing memoization
 
-**CRITICAL**: This is an audit, not a fix. Document issues thoroughly with clear explanations of impact. Use other commands (normalize, optimize, harden, etc.) to fix issues after audit.
+**Score 0-4**: 0=Severe issues (layout thrash, unoptimized everything), 1=Major problems (no lazy loading, expensive animations), 2=Partial (some optimization, gaps remain), 3=Good (mostly optimized, minor improvements possible), 4=Excellent (fast, lean, well-optimized)
 
-## Generate Comprehensive Report
+### 3. Theming
 
-Create a detailed audit report with the following structure:
+**Check for**:
+- **Hard-coded colors**: Colors not using design tokens
+- **Broken dark mode**: Missing dark mode variants, poor contrast in dark theme
+- **Inconsistent tokens**: Using wrong tokens, mixing token types
+- **Theme switching issues**: Values that don't update on theme change
+
+**Score 0-4**: 0=No theming (hard-coded everything), 1=Minimal tokens (mostly hard-coded), 2=Partial (tokens exist but inconsistently used), 3=Good (tokens used, minor hard-coded values), 4=Excellent (full token system, dark mode works perfectly)
+
+### 4. Responsive Design
+
+**Check for**:
+- **Fixed widths**: Hard-coded widths that break on mobile
+- **Touch targets**: Interactive elements < 44x44px
+- **Horizontal scroll**: Content overflow on narrow viewports
+- **Text scaling**: Layouts that break when text size increases
+- **Missing breakpoints**: No mobile/tablet variants
+
+**Score 0-4**: 0=Desktop-only (breaks on mobile), 1=Major issues (some breakpoints, many failures), 2=Partial (works on mobile, rough edges), 3=Good (responsive, minor touch target or overflow issues), 4=Excellent (fluid, all viewports, proper touch targets)
+
+### 5. Anti-Patterns (CRITICAL)
+
+Check against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill. Look for AI slop tells (AI color palette, gradient text, glassmorphism, hero metrics, card grids, generic fonts) and general design anti-patterns (gray on color, nested cards, bounce easing, redundant copy).
+
+**Score 0-4**: 0=AI slop gallery (5+ tells), 1=Heavy AI aesthetic (3-4 tells), 2=Some tells (1-2 noticeable), 3=Mostly clean (subtle issues only), 4=No AI tells (distinctive, intentional design)
+
+## Generate Report
+
+### Audit Health Score
+
+| # | Dimension | Score | Key Finding |
+|---|-----------|-------|-------------|
+| 1 | Accessibility | ? | [most critical a11y issue or "--"] |
+| 2 | Performance | ? | |
+| 3 | Responsive Design | ? | |
+| 4 | Theming | ? | |
+| 5 | Anti-Patterns | ? | |
+| **Total** | | **??/20** | **[Rating band]** |
+
+**Rating bands**: 18-20 Excellent (minor polish), 14-17 Good (address weak dimensions), 10-13 Acceptable (significant work needed), 6-9 Poor (major overhaul), 0-5 Critical (fundamental issues)
 
 ### Anti-Patterns Verdict
-**Start here.** Pass/fail: Does this look AI-generated? List specific tells from the skill's Anti-Patterns section. Be brutally honest.
+**Start here.** Pass/fail: Does this look AI-generated? List specific tells. Be brutally honest.
 
 ### Executive Summary
-- Total issues found (count by severity)
-- Most critical issues (top 3-5)
-- Overall quality score (if applicable)
+- Audit Health Score: **??/20** ([rating band])
+- Total issues found (count by severity: P0/P1/P2/P3)
+- Top 3-5 critical issues
 - Recommended next steps
 
 ### Detailed Findings by Severity
 
+Tag every issue with **P0-P3 severity**:
+- **P0 Blocking**: Prevents task completion — fix immediately
+- **P1 Major**: Significant difficulty or WCAG AA violation — fix before release
+- **P2 Minor**: Annoyance, workaround exists — fix in next pass
+- **P3 Polish**: Nice-to-fix, no real user impact — fix if time permits
+
 For each issue, document:
-- **Location**: Where the issue occurs (component, file, line)
-- **Severity**: Critical / High / Medium / Low
-- **Category**: Accessibility / Performance / Theming / Responsive
-- **Description**: What the issue is
+- **[P?] Issue name**
+- **Location**: Component, file, line
+- **Category**: Accessibility / Performance / Theming / Responsive / Anti-Pattern
 - **Impact**: How it affects users
 - **WCAG/Standard**: Which standard it violates (if applicable)
 - **Recommendation**: How to fix it
-- **Suggested command**: Which command to use (prefer: $animate, $quieter, $optimize, $adapt, $clarify, $distill, $delight, $onboard, $normalize, $audit, $harden, $polish, $extract, $bolder, $arrange, $typeset, $critique, $colorize, $overdrive — or other installed skills you're sure exist)
-
-#### Critical Issues
-[Issues that block core functionality or violate WCAG A]
-
-#### High-Severity Issues  
-[Significant usability/accessibility impact, WCAG AA violations]
-
-#### Medium-Severity Issues
-[Quality issues, WCAG AAA violations, performance concerns]
-
-#### Low-Severity Issues
-[Minor inconsistencies, optimization opportunities]
+- **Suggested command**: Which command to use (prefer: $animate, $quieter, $optimize, $adapt, $clarify, $distill, $delight, $onboard, $normalize, $audit, $harden, $polish, $extract, $bolder, $arrange, $typeset, $critique, $colorize, $overdrive)
 
 ### Patterns & Systemic Issues
 
-Identify recurring problems:
+Identify recurring problems that indicate systemic gaps rather than one-off mistakes:
 - "Hard-coded colors appear in 15+ components, should use design tokens"
 - "Touch targets consistently too small (<44px) throughout mobile experience"
-- "Missing focus indicators on all custom interactive components"
 
 ### Positive Findings
 
-Note what's working well:
-- Good practices to maintain
-- Exemplary implementations to replicate elsewhere
+Note what's working well — good practices to maintain and replicate.
 
-### Recommendations by Priority
+## Recommended Actions
 
-Create actionable plan:
-1. **Immediate**: Critical blockers to fix first
-2. **Short-term**: High-severity issues (this sprint)
-3. **Medium-term**: Quality improvements (next sprint)
-4. **Long-term**: Nice-to-haves and optimizations
+List recommended commands in priority order (P0 first, then P1, then P2):
 
-### Suggested Commands for Fixes
+1. **[P?] `$command-name`** — Brief description (specific context from audit findings)
+2. **[P?] `$command-name`** — Brief description (specific context)
 
-Map issues to available commands. Prefer these: $animate, $quieter, $optimize, $adapt, $clarify, $distill, $delight, $onboard, $normalize, $audit, $harden, $polish, $extract, $bolder, $arrange, $typeset, $critique, $colorize, $overdrive. You may also suggest other installed skills you're sure exist, but never invent commands.
+**Rules**: Only recommend commands from: $animate, $quieter, $optimize, $adapt, $clarify, $distill, $delight, $onboard, $normalize, $audit, $harden, $polish, $extract, $bolder, $arrange, $typeset, $critique, $colorize, $overdrive. Map findings to the most appropriate command. End with `$polish` as the final step if any fixes were recommended.
 
-Examples:
-- "Use `$normalize` to align with design system (addresses N theming issues)"
-- "Use `$optimize` to improve performance (addresses N performance issues)"
-- "Use `$harden` to improve resilience (addresses N edge cases)"
+After presenting the summary, tell the user:
 
-**IMPORTANT**: Be thorough but actionable. Too many low-priority issues creates noise. Focus on what actually matters.
+> You can ask me to run these one at a time, all at once, or in any order you prefer.
+>
+> Re-run `$audit` after fixes to see your score improve.
+
+**IMPORTANT**: Be thorough but actionable. Too many P3 issues creates noise. Focus on what actually matters.
 
 **NEVER**:
 - Report issues without explaining impact (why does this matter?)
-- Mix severity levels inconsistently
-- Skip positive findings (celebrate what works)
 - Provide generic recommendations (be specific and actionable)
-- Forget to prioritize (everything can't be critical)
+- Skip positive findings (celebrate what works)
+- Forget to prioritize (everything can't be P0)
 - Report false positives without verification
 
-Remember: You're a quality auditor with exceptional attention to detail. Document systematically, prioritize ruthlessly, and provide clear paths to improvement. A good audit makes fixing easy.
\ No newline at end of file
+Remember: You're a technical quality auditor. Document systematically, prioritize ruthlessly, cite specific code locations, and provide clear paths to improvement.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/.codex/skills/critique/SKILL.md b/.codex/skills/critique/SKILL.md
index 27e5d98bc..5cb4af114 100644
--- a/.codex/skills/critique/SKILL.md
+++ b/.codex/skills/critique/SKILL.md
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 name: critique
-description: Evaluate design effectiveness from a UX perspective. Assesses visual hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, and overall design quality with actionable feedback. Use when the user asks to review, critique, evaluate, audit, or give feedback on a design, UI, or component.
+description: Evaluate design from a UX perspective, assessing visual hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, cognitive load, and overall quality with quantitative scoring, persona-based testing, and actionable feedback. Use when the user asks to review, critique, evaluate, or give feedback on a design or component.
 argument-hint: "[area (feature, page, component...)]"
 ---
 
@@ -10,9 +10,9 @@ Invoke $frontend-design — it contains design principles, anti-patterns, and th
 
 ---
 
-Conduct a holistic design critique, evaluating whether the interface actually works—not just technically, but as a designed experience. Think like a design director giving feedback.
+Conduct a holistic design critique, evaluating whether the interface actually works — not just technically, but as a designed experience. Think like a design director giving feedback.
 
-## Design Critique
+## Phase 1: Design Critique
 
 Evaluate the interface across these dimensions:
 
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ Evaluate the interface across these dimensions:
 
 **This is the most important check.** Does this look like every other AI-generated interface from 2024-2025?
 
-Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill—they are the fingerprints of AI-generated work. Check for the AI color palette, gradient text, dark mode with glowing accents, glassmorphism, hero metric layouts, identical card grids, generic fonts, and all other tells.
+Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill — they are the fingerprints of AI-generated work. Check for the AI color palette, gradient text, dark mode with glowing accents, glassmorphism, hero metric layouts, identical card grids, generic fonts, and all other tells.
 
 **The test**: If you showed this to someone and said "AI made this," would they believe you immediately? If yes, that's the problem.
 
@@ -30,17 +30,23 @@ Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design sk
 - Do size, color, and position communicate importance correctly?
 - Is there visual competition between elements that should have different weights?
 
-### 3. Information Architecture
+### 3. Information Architecture & Cognitive Load
+> *Consult [cognitive-load](reference/cognitive-load.md) for the working memory rule and 8-item checklist*
 - Is the structure intuitive? Would a new user understand the organization?
 - Is related content grouped logically?
-- Are there too many choices at once? (cognitive overload)
+- Are there too many choices at once? Count visible options at each decision point — if >4, flag it
 - Is the navigation clear and predictable?
+- **Progressive disclosure**: Is complexity revealed only when needed, or dumped on the user upfront?
+- **Run the 8-item cognitive load checklist** from the reference. Report failure count: 0–1 = low (good), 2–3 = moderate, 4+ = critical.
 
-### 4. Emotional Resonance
+### 4. Emotional Journey
 - What emotion does this interface evoke? Is that intentional?
 - Does it match the brand personality?
-- Does it feel trustworthy, approachable, premium, playful—whatever it should feel?
+- Does it feel trustworthy, approachable, premium, playful — whatever it should feel?
 - Would the target user feel "this is for me"?
+- **Peak-end rule**: Is the most intense moment positive? Does the experience end well (confirmation, celebration, clear next step)?
+- **Emotional valleys**: Check for onboarding frustration, error cliffs, feature discovery gaps, or anxiety spikes at high-stakes moments (payment, delete, commit)
+- **Interventions at negative moments**: Are there design interventions where users are likely to feel frustrated or anxious? (progress indicators, reassurance copy, undo options, social proof)
 
 ### 5. Discoverability & Affordance
 - Are interactive elements obviously interactive?
@@ -64,7 +70,7 @@ Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design sk
 - Is color used to communicate, not just decorate?
 - Does the palette feel cohesive?
 - Are accent colors drawing attention to the right things?
-- Does it work for colorblind users? (not just technically—does meaning still come through?)
+- Does it work for colorblind users? (not just technically — does meaning still come through?)
 
 ### 9. States & Edge Cases
 - Empty states: Do they guide users toward action, or just say "nothing here"?
@@ -78,41 +84,117 @@ Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design sk
 - Are labels and buttons unambiguous?
 - Does error copy help users fix the problem?
 
-## Generate Critique Report
+## Phase 2: Present Findings
 
 Structure your feedback as a design director would:
 
+### Design Health Score
+> *Consult [heuristics-scoring](reference/heuristics-scoring.md)*
+
+Score each of Nielsen's 10 heuristics 0–4. Present as a table:
+
+| # | Heuristic | Score | Key Issue |
+|---|-----------|-------|-----------|
+| 1 | Visibility of System Status | ? | [specific finding or "—" if solid] |
+| 2 | Match System / Real World | ? | |
+| 3 | User Control and Freedom | ? | |
+| 4 | Consistency and Standards | ? | |
+| 5 | Error Prevention | ? | |
+| 6 | Recognition Rather Than Recall | ? | |
+| 7 | Flexibility and Efficiency | ? | |
+| 8 | Aesthetic and Minimalist Design | ? | |
+| 9 | Error Recovery | ? | |
+| 10 | Help and Documentation | ? | |
+| **Total** | | **??/40** | **[Rating band]** |
+
+Be honest with scores. A 4 means genuinely excellent. Most real interfaces score 20–32.
+
 ### Anti-Patterns Verdict
 **Start here.** Pass/fail: Does this look AI-generated? List specific tells from the skill's Anti-Patterns section. Be brutally honest.
 
 ### Overall Impression
-A brief gut reaction—what works, what doesn't, and the single biggest opportunity.
+A brief gut reaction — what works, what doesn't, and the single biggest opportunity.
 
 ### What's Working
-Highlight 2-3 things done well. Be specific about why they work.
+Highlight 2–3 things done well. Be specific about why they work.
 
 ### Priority Issues
-The 3-5 most impactful design problems, ordered by importance:
+The 3–5 most impactful design problems, ordered by importance.
 
-For each issue:
-- **What**: Name the problem clearly
+For each issue, tag with **P0–P3 severity** (consult [heuristics-scoring](reference/heuristics-scoring.md) for severity definitions):
+- **[P?] What**: Name the problem clearly
 - **Why it matters**: How this hurts users or undermines goals
 - **Fix**: What to do about it (be concrete)
-- **Command**: Which command to use (prefer: $animate, $quieter, $optimize, $adapt, $clarify, $distill, $delight, $onboard, $normalize, $audit, $harden, $polish, $extract, $bolder, $arrange, $typeset, $critique, $colorize, $overdrive — or other installed skills you're sure exist)
+- **Suggested command**: Which command could address this (from: $animate, $quieter, $optimize, $adapt, $clarify, $distill, $delight, $onboard, $normalize, $audit, $harden, $polish, $extract, $bolder, $arrange, $typeset, $critique, $colorize, $overdrive)
+
+### Persona Red Flags
+> *Consult [personas](reference/personas.md)*
+
+Auto-select 2–3 personas most relevant to this interface type (use the selection table in the reference). If `AGENTS.md` contains a `## Design Context` section from `teach-impeccable`, also generate 1–2 project-specific personas from the audience/brand info.
+
+For each selected persona, walk through the primary user action and list specific red flags found:
+
+**Alex (Power User)**: No keyboard shortcuts detected. Form requires 8 clicks for primary action. Forced modal onboarding. ⚠️ High abandonment risk.
+
+**Jordan (First-Timer)**: Icon-only nav in sidebar. Technical jargon in error messages ("404 Not Found"). No visible help. ⚠️ Will abandon at step 2.
+
+Be specific — name the exact elements and interactions that fail each persona. Don't write generic persona descriptions; write what broke for them.
 
 ### Minor Observations
 Quick notes on smaller issues worth addressing.
 
-### Questions to Consider
-Provocative questions that might unlock better solutions:
-- "What if the primary action were more prominent?"
-- "Does this need to feel this complex?"
-- "What would a confident version of this look like?"
-
 **Remember**:
-- Be direct—vague feedback wastes everyone's time
-- Be specific—"the submit button" not "some elements"
+- Be direct — vague feedback wastes everyone's time
+- Be specific — "the submit button" not "some elements"
 - Say what's wrong AND why it matters to users
 - Give concrete suggestions, not just "consider exploring..."
-- Prioritize ruthlessly—if everything is important, nothing is
-- Don't soften criticism—developers need honest feedback to ship great design
\ No newline at end of file
+- Prioritize ruthlessly — if everything is important, nothing is
+- Don't soften criticism — developers need honest feedback to ship great design
+
+## Phase 3: Ask the User
+
+**After presenting findings**, use targeted questions based on what was actually found. ask the user directly to clarify what you cannot infer. These answers will shape the action plan.
+
+Ask questions along these lines (adapt to the specific findings — do NOT ask generic questions):
+
+1. **Priority direction**: Based on the issues found, ask which category matters most to the user right now. For example: "I found problems with visual hierarchy, color usage, and information overload. Which area should we tackle first?" Offer the top 2–3 issue categories as options.
+
+2. **Design intent**: If the critique found a tonal mismatch, ask whether it was intentional. For example: "The interface feels clinical and corporate. Is that the intended tone, or should it feel warmer$bolder/more playful?" Offer 2–3 tonal directions as options based on what would fix the issues found.
+
+3. **Scope**: Ask how much the user wants to take on. For example: "I found N issues. Want to address everything, or focus on the top 3?" Offer scope options like "Top 3 only", "All issues", "Critical issues only".
+
+4. **Constraints** (optional — only ask if relevant): If the findings touch many areas, ask if anything is off-limits. For example: "Should any sections stay as-is?" This prevents the plan from touching things the user considers done.
+
+**Rules for questions**:
+- Every question must reference specific findings from Phase 2 — never ask generic "who is your audience?" questions
+- Keep it to 2–4 questions maximum — respect the user's time
+- Offer concrete options, not open-ended prompts
+- If findings are straightforward (e.g., only 1–2 clear issues), skip questions and go directly to Phase 4
+
+## Phase 4: Recommended Actions
+
+**After receiving the user's answers**, present a prioritized action summary reflecting the user's priorities and scope from Phase 3.
+
+### Action Summary
+
+List recommended commands in priority order, based on the user's answers:
+
+1. **`$command-name`** — Brief description of what to fix (specific context from critique findings)
+2. **`$command-name`** — Brief description (specific context)
+...
+
+**Rules for recommendations**:
+- Only recommend commands from: $animate, $quieter, $optimize, $adapt, $clarify, $distill, $delight, $onboard, $normalize, $audit, $harden, $polish, $extract, $bolder, $arrange, $typeset, $critique, $colorize, $overdrive
+- Order by the user's stated priorities first, then by impact
+- Each item's description should carry enough context that the command knows what to focus on
+- Map each Priority Issue to the appropriate command
+- Skip commands that would address zero issues
+- If the user chose a limited scope, only include items within that scope
+- If the user marked areas as off-limits, exclude commands that would touch those areas
+- End with `$polish` as the final step if any fixes were recommended
+
+After presenting the summary, tell the user:
+
+> You can ask me to run these one at a time, all at once, or in any order you prefer.
+>
+> Re-run `$critique` after fixes to see your score improve.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/.codex/skills/critique/reference/cognitive-load.md b/.codex/skills/critique/reference/cognitive-load.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..313df166b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.codex/skills/critique/reference/cognitive-load.md
@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+# Cognitive Load Assessment
+
+Cognitive load is the total mental effort required to use an interface. Overloaded users make mistakes, get frustrated, and leave. This reference helps identify and fix cognitive overload.
+
+---
+
+## Three Types of Cognitive Load
+
+### Intrinsic Load — The Task Itself
+Complexity inherent to what the user is trying to do. You can't eliminate this, but you can structure it.
+
+**Manage it by**:
+- Breaking complex tasks into discrete steps
+- Providing scaffolding (templates, defaults, examples)
+- Progressive disclosure — show what's needed now, hide the rest
+- Grouping related decisions together
+
+### Extraneous Load — Bad Design
+Mental effort caused by poor design choices. **Eliminate this ruthlessly** — it's pure waste.
+
+**Common sources**:
+- Confusing navigation that requires mental mapping
+- Unclear labels that force users to guess meaning
+- Visual clutter competing for attention
+- Inconsistent patterns that prevent learning
+- Unnecessary steps between user intent and result
+
+### Germane Load — Learning Effort
+Mental effort spent building understanding. This is *good* cognitive load — it leads to mastery.
+
+**Support it by**:
+- Progressive disclosure that reveals complexity gradually
+- Consistent patterns that reward learning
+- Feedback that confirms correct understanding
+- Onboarding that teaches through action, not walls of text
+
+---
+
+## Cognitive Load Checklist
+
+Evaluate the interface against these 8 items:
+
+- [ ] **Single focus**: Can the user complete their primary task without distraction from competing elements?
+- [ ] **Chunking**: Is information presented in digestible groups (≤4 items per group)?
+- [ ] **Grouping**: Are related items visually grouped together (proximity, borders, shared background)?
+- [ ] **Visual hierarchy**: Is it immediately clear what's most important on the screen?
+- [ ] **One thing at a time**: Can the user focus on a single decision before moving to the next?
+- [ ] **Minimal choices**: Are decisions simplified (≤4 visible options at any decision point)?
+- [ ] **Working memory**: Does the user need to remember information from a previous screen to act on the current one?
+- [ ] **Progressive disclosure**: Is complexity revealed only when the user needs it?
+
+**Scoring**: Count the failed items. 0–1 failures = low cognitive load (good). 2–3 = moderate (address soon). 4+ = high cognitive load (critical fix needed).
+
+---
+
+## The Working Memory Rule
+
+**Humans can hold ≤4 items in working memory at once** (Miller's Law revised by Cowan, 2001).
+
+At any decision point, count the number of distinct options, actions, or pieces of information a user must simultaneously consider:
+- **≤4 items**: Within working memory limits — manageable
+- **5–7 items**: Pushing the boundary — consider grouping or progressive disclosure
+- **8+ items**: Overloaded — users will skip, misclick, or abandon
+
+**Practical applications**:
+- Navigation menus: ≤5 top-level items (group the rest under clear categories)
+- Form sections: ≤4 fields visible per group before a visual break
+- Action buttons: 1 primary, 1–2 secondary, group the rest in a menu
+- Dashboard widgets: ≤4 key metrics visible without scrolling
+- Pricing tiers: ≤3 options (more causes analysis paralysis)
+
+---
+
+## Common Cognitive Load Violations
+
+### 1. The Wall of Options
+**Problem**: Presenting 10+ choices at once with no hierarchy.
+**Fix**: Group into categories, highlight recommended, use progressive disclosure.
+
+### 2. The Memory Bridge
+**Problem**: User must remember info from step 1 to complete step 3.
+**Fix**: Keep relevant context visible, or repeat it where it's needed.
+
+### 3. The Hidden Navigation
+**Problem**: User must build a mental map of where things are.
+**Fix**: Always show current location (breadcrumbs, active states, progress indicators).
+
+### 4. The Jargon Barrier
+**Problem**: Technical or domain language forces translation effort.
+**Fix**: Use plain language. If domain terms are unavoidable, define them inline.
+
+### 5. The Visual Noise Floor
+**Problem**: Every element has the same visual weight — nothing stands out.
+**Fix**: Establish clear hierarchy: one primary element, 2–3 secondary, everything else muted.
+
+### 6. The Inconsistent Pattern
+**Problem**: Similar actions work differently in different places.
+**Fix**: Standardize interaction patterns. Same type of action = same type of UI.
+
+### 7. The Multi-Task Demand
+**Problem**: Interface requires processing multiple simultaneous inputs (reading + deciding + navigating).
+**Fix**: Sequence the steps. Let the user do one thing at a time.
+
+### 8. The Context Switch
+**Problem**: User must jump between screens/tabs/modals to gather info for a single decision.
+**Fix**: Co-locate the information needed for each decision. Reduce back-and-forth.
diff --git a/.codex/skills/critique/reference/heuristics-scoring.md b/.codex/skills/critique/reference/heuristics-scoring.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..fd5b1b08b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.codex/skills/critique/reference/heuristics-scoring.md
@@ -0,0 +1,234 @@
+# Heuristics Scoring Guide
+
+Score each of Nielsen's 10 Usability Heuristics on a 0–4 scale. Be honest — a 4 means genuinely excellent, not "good enough."
+
+## Nielsen's 10 Heuristics
+
+### 1. Visibility of System Status
+
+Keep users informed about what's happening through timely, appropriate feedback.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Loading indicators during async operations
+- Confirmation of user actions (save, submit, delete)
+- Progress indicators for multi-step processes
+- Current location in navigation (breadcrumbs, active states)
+- Form validation feedback (inline, not just on submit)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | No feedback — user is guessing what happened |
+| 1 | Rare feedback — most actions produce no visible response |
+| 2 | Partial — some states communicated, major gaps remain |
+| 3 | Good — most operations give clear feedback, minor gaps |
+| 4 | Excellent — every action confirms, progress is always visible |
+
+### 2. Match Between System and Real World
+
+Speak the user's language. Follow real-world conventions. Information appears in natural, logical order.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Familiar terminology (no unexplained jargon)
+- Logical information order matching user expectations
+- Recognizable icons and metaphors
+- Domain-appropriate language for the target audience
+- Natural reading flow (left-to-right, top-to-bottom priority)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Pure tech jargon, alien to users |
+| 1 | Mostly confusing — requires domain expertise to navigate |
+| 2 | Mixed — some plain language, some jargon leaks through |
+| 3 | Mostly natural — occasional term needs context |
+| 4 | Speaks the user's language fluently throughout |
+
+### 3. User Control and Freedom
+
+Users need a clear "emergency exit" from unwanted states without extended dialogue.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Undo/redo functionality
+- Cancel buttons on forms and modals
+- Clear navigation back to safety (home, previous)
+- Easy way to clear filters, search, selections
+- Escape from long or multi-step processes
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Users get trapped — no way out without refreshing |
+| 1 | Difficult exits — must find obscure paths to escape |
+| 2 | Some exits — main flows have escape, edge cases don't |
+| 3 | Good control — users can exit and undo most actions |
+| 4 | Full control — undo, cancel, back, and escape everywhere |
+
+### 4. Consistency and Standards
+
+Users shouldn't wonder whether different words, situations, or actions mean the same thing.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Consistent terminology throughout the interface
+- Same actions produce same results everywhere
+- Platform conventions followed (standard UI patterns)
+- Visual consistency (colors, typography, spacing, components)
+- Consistent interaction patterns (same gesture = same behavior)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Inconsistent everywhere — feels like different products stitched together |
+| 1 | Many inconsistencies — similar things look/behave differently |
+| 2 | Partially consistent — main flows match, details diverge |
+| 3 | Mostly consistent — occasional deviation, nothing confusing |
+| 4 | Fully consistent — cohesive system, predictable behavior |
+
+### 5. Error Prevention
+
+Better than good error messages is a design that prevents problems in the first place.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Confirmation before destructive actions (delete, overwrite)
+- Constraints preventing invalid input (date pickers, dropdowns)
+- Smart defaults that reduce errors
+- Clear labels that prevent misunderstanding
+- Autosave and draft recovery
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Errors easy to make — no guardrails anywhere |
+| 1 | Few safeguards — some inputs validated, most aren't |
+| 2 | Partial prevention — common errors caught, edge cases slip |
+| 3 | Good prevention — most error paths blocked proactively |
+| 4 | Excellent — errors nearly impossible through smart constraints |
+
+### 6. Recognition Rather Than Recall
+
+Minimize memory load. Make objects, actions, and options visible or easily retrievable.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Visible options (not buried in hidden menus)
+- Contextual help when needed (tooltips, inline hints)
+- Recent items and history
+- Autocomplete and suggestions
+- Labels on icons (not icon-only navigation)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Heavy memorization — users must remember paths and commands |
+| 1 | Mostly recall — many hidden features, few visible cues |
+| 2 | Some aids — main actions visible, secondary features hidden |
+| 3 | Good recognition — most things discoverable, few memory demands |
+| 4 | Everything discoverable — users never need to memorize |
+
+### 7. Flexibility and Efficiency of Use
+
+Accelerators — invisible to novices — speed up expert interaction.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Keyboard shortcuts for common actions
+- Customizable interface elements
+- Recent items and favorites
+- Bulk/batch actions
+- Power user features that don't complicate the basics
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | One rigid path — no shortcuts or alternatives |
+| 1 | Limited flexibility — few alternatives to the main path |
+| 2 | Some shortcuts — basic keyboard support, limited bulk actions |
+| 3 | Good accelerators — keyboard nav, some customization |
+| 4 | Highly flexible — multiple paths, power features, customizable |
+
+### 8. Aesthetic and Minimalist Design
+
+Interfaces should not contain irrelevant or rarely needed information. Every element should serve a purpose.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Only necessary information visible at each step
+- Clear visual hierarchy directing attention
+- Purposeful use of color and emphasis
+- No decorative clutter competing for attention
+- Focused, uncluttered layouts
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Overwhelming — everything competes for attention equally |
+| 1 | Cluttered — too much noise, hard to find what matters |
+| 2 | Some clutter — main content clear, periphery noisy |
+| 3 | Mostly clean — focused design, minor visual noise |
+| 4 | Perfectly minimal — every element earns its pixel |
+
+### 9. Help Users Recognize, Diagnose, and Recover from Errors
+
+Error messages should use plain language, precisely indicate the problem, and constructively suggest a solution.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Plain language error messages (no error codes for users)
+- Specific problem identification ("Email is missing @" not "Invalid input")
+- Actionable recovery suggestions
+- Errors displayed near the source of the problem
+- Non-blocking error handling (don't wipe the form)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Cryptic errors — codes, jargon, or no message at all |
+| 1 | Vague errors — "Something went wrong" with no guidance |
+| 2 | Clear but unhelpful — names the problem but not the fix |
+| 3 | Clear with suggestions — identifies problem and offers next steps |
+| 4 | Perfect recovery — pinpoints issue, suggests fix, preserves user work |
+
+### 10. Help and Documentation
+
+Even if the system is usable without docs, help should be easy to find, task-focused, and concise.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Searchable help or documentation
+- Contextual help (tooltips, inline hints, guided tours)
+- Task-focused organization (not feature-organized)
+- Concise, scannable content
+- Easy access without leaving current context
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | No help available anywhere |
+| 1 | Help exists but hard to find or irrelevant |
+| 2 | Basic help — FAQ or docs exist, not contextual |
+| 3 | Good documentation — searchable, mostly task-focused |
+| 4 | Excellent contextual help — right info at the right moment |
+
+---
+
+## Score Summary
+
+**Total possible**: 40 points (10 heuristics × 4 max)
+
+| Score Range | Rating | What It Means |
+|-------------|--------|---------------|
+| 36–40 | Excellent | Minor polish only — ship it |
+| 28–35 | Good | Address weak areas, solid foundation |
+| 20–27 | Acceptable | Significant improvements needed before users are happy |
+| 12–19 | Poor | Major UX overhaul required — core experience broken |
+| 0–11 | Critical | Redesign needed — unusable in current state |
+
+---
+
+## Issue Severity (P0–P3)
+
+Tag each individual issue found during scoring with a priority level:
+
+| Priority | Name | Description | Action |
+|----------|------|-------------|--------|
+| **P0** | Blocking | Prevents task completion entirely | Fix immediately — this is a showstopper |
+| **P1** | Major | Causes significant difficulty or confusion | Fix before release |
+| **P2** | Minor | Annoyance, but workaround exists | Fix in next pass |
+| **P3** | Polish | Nice-to-fix, no real user impact | Fix if time permits |
+
+**Tip**: If you're unsure between two levels, ask: "Would a user contact support about this?" If yes, it's at least P1.
diff --git a/.codex/skills/critique/reference/personas.md b/.codex/skills/critique/reference/personas.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..2d0f9cbf3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.codex/skills/critique/reference/personas.md
@@ -0,0 +1,178 @@
+# Persona-Based Design Testing
+
+Test the interface through the eyes of 5 distinct user archetypes. Each persona exposes different failure modes that a single "design director" perspective would miss.
+
+**How to use**: Select 2–3 personas most relevant to the interface being critiqued. Walk through the primary user action as each persona. Report specific red flags — not generic concerns.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Impatient Power User — "Alex"
+
+**Profile**: Expert with similar products. Expects efficiency, hates hand-holding. Will find shortcuts or leave.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Skips all onboarding and instructions
+- Looks for keyboard shortcuts immediately
+- Tries to bulk-select, batch-edit, and automate
+- Gets frustrated by required steps that feel unnecessary
+- Abandons if anything feels slow or patronizing
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Can Alex complete the core task in under 60 seconds?
+- Are there keyboard shortcuts for common actions?
+- Can onboarding be skipped entirely?
+- Do modals have keyboard dismiss (Esc)?
+- Is there a "power user" path (shortcuts, bulk actions)?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Forced tutorials or unskippable onboarding
+- No keyboard navigation for primary actions
+- Slow animations that can't be skipped
+- One-item-at-a-time workflows where batch would be natural
+- Redundant confirmation steps for low-risk actions
+
+---
+
+## 2. Confused First-Timer — "Jordan"
+
+**Profile**: Never used this type of product. Needs guidance at every step. Will abandon rather than figure it out.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Reads all instructions carefully
+- Hesitates before clicking anything unfamiliar
+- Looks for help or support constantly
+- Misunderstands jargon and abbreviations
+- Takes the most literal interpretation of any label
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Is the first action obviously clear within 5 seconds?
+- Are all icons labeled with text?
+- Is there contextual help at decision points?
+- Does terminology assume prior knowledge?
+- Is there a clear "back" or "undo" at every step?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Icon-only navigation with no labels
+- Technical jargon without explanation
+- No visible help option or guidance
+- Ambiguous next steps after completing an action
+- No confirmation that an action succeeded
+
+---
+
+## 3. Accessibility-Dependent User — "Sam"
+
+**Profile**: Uses screen reader (VoiceOver/NVDA), keyboard-only navigation. May have low vision, motor impairment, or cognitive differences.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Tabs through the interface linearly
+- Relies on ARIA labels and heading structure
+- Cannot see hover states or visual-only indicators
+- Needs adequate color contrast (4.5:1 minimum)
+- May use browser zoom up to 200%
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Can the entire primary flow be completed keyboard-only?
+- Are all interactive elements focusable with visible focus indicators?
+- Do images have meaningful alt text?
+- Is color contrast WCAG AA compliant (4.5:1 for text)?
+- Does the screen reader announce state changes (loading, success, errors)?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Click-only interactions with no keyboard alternative
+- Missing or invisible focus indicators
+- Meaning conveyed by color alone (red = error, green = success)
+- Unlabeled form fields or buttons
+- Time-limited actions without extension option
+- Custom components that break screen reader flow
+
+---
+
+## 4. Deliberate Stress Tester — "Riley"
+
+**Profile**: Methodical user who pushes interfaces beyond the happy path. Tests edge cases, tries unexpected inputs, and probes for gaps in the experience.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Tests edge cases intentionally (empty states, long strings, special characters)
+- Submits forms with unexpected data (emoji, RTL text, very long values)
+- Tries to break workflows by navigating backwards, refreshing mid-flow, or opening in multiple tabs
+- Looks for inconsistencies between what the UI promises and what actually happens
+- Documents problems methodically
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- What happens at the edges (0 items, 1000 items, very long text)?
+- Do error states recover gracefully or leave the UI in a broken state?
+- What happens on refresh mid-workflow? Is state preserved?
+- Are there features that appear to work but produce broken results?
+- How does the UI handle unexpected input (emoji, special chars, paste from Excel)?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Features that appear to work but silently fail or produce wrong results
+- Error handling that exposes technical details or leaves UI in a broken state
+- Empty states that show nothing useful ("No results" with no guidance)
+- Workflows that lose user data on refresh or navigation
+- Inconsistent behavior between similar interactions in different parts of the UI
+
+---
+
+## 5. Distracted Mobile User — "Casey"
+
+**Profile**: Using phone one-handed on the go. Frequently interrupted. Possibly on a slow connection.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Uses thumb only — prefers bottom-of-screen actions
+- Gets interrupted mid-flow and returns later
+- Switches between apps frequently
+- Has limited attention span and low patience
+- Types as little as possible, prefers taps and selections
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Are primary actions in the thumb zone (bottom half of screen)?
+- Is state preserved if the user leaves and returns?
+- Does it work on slow connections (3G)?
+- Can forms leverage autocomplete and smart defaults?
+- Are touch targets at least 44×44pt?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Important actions positioned at the top of the screen (unreachable by thumb)
+- No state persistence — progress lost on tab switch or interruption
+- Large text inputs required where selection would work
+- Heavy assets loading on every page (no lazy loading)
+- Tiny tap targets or targets too close together
+
+---
+
+## Selecting Personas
+
+Choose personas based on the interface type:
+
+| Interface Type | Primary Personas | Why |
+|---------------|-----------------|-----|
+| Landing page / marketing | Jordan, Riley, Casey | First impressions, trust, mobile |
+| Dashboard / admin | Alex, Sam | Power users, accessibility |
+| E-commerce / checkout | Casey, Riley, Jordan | Mobile, edge cases, clarity |
+| Onboarding flow | Jordan, Casey | Confusion, interruption |
+| Data-heavy / analytics | Alex, Sam | Efficiency, keyboard nav |
+| Form-heavy / wizard | Jordan, Sam, Casey | Clarity, accessibility, mobile |
+
+---
+
+## Project-Specific Personas
+
+If `AGENTS.md` contains a `## Design Context` section (generated by `teach-impeccable`), derive 1–2 additional personas from the audience and brand information:
+
+1. Read the target audience description
+2. Identify the primary user archetype not covered by the 5 predefined personas
+3. Create a persona following this template:
+
+```
+### [Role] — "[Name]"
+
+**Profile**: [2-3 key characteristics derived from Design Context]
+
+**Behaviors**: [3-4 specific behaviors based on the described audience]
+
+**Red Flags**: [3-4 things that would alienate this specific user type]
+```
+
+Only generate project-specific personas when real Design Context data is available. Don't invent audience details — use the 5 predefined personas when no context exists.
diff --git a/.cursor/skills/audit/SKILL.md b/.cursor/skills/audit/SKILL.md
index 6490cb9aa..6dc747d60 100644
--- a/.cursor/skills/audit/SKILL.md
+++ b/.cursor/skills/audit/SKILL.md
@@ -1,123 +1,145 @@
 ---
 name: audit
-description: Perform a comprehensive audit of interface quality across accessibility, performance, theming, and responsive design. Generates a prioritized report with severity ratings. Use when the user wants a design review, accessibility check, quality audit, or a full list of UI issues to fix.
+description: Run technical quality checks across accessibility, performance, theming, responsive design, and anti-patterns. Generates a scored report with P0-P3 severity ratings and actionable plan. Use when the user wants an accessibility check, performance audit, or technical quality review.
 ---
 
-Run systematic quality checks and generate a comprehensive audit report with prioritized issues and actionable recommendations. Don't fix issues - document them for other commands to address.
+## MANDATORY PREPARATION
 
-**First**: Invoke /frontend-design for design principles and anti-patterns.
+Invoke /frontend-design — it contains design principles, anti-patterns, and the **Context Gathering Protocol**. Follow the protocol before proceeding — if no design context exists yet, you MUST run /teach-impeccable first.
+
+---
+
+Run systematic **technical** quality checks and generate a comprehensive report. Don't fix issues — document them for other commands to address.
+
+This is a code-level audit, not a design critique. Check what's measurable and verifiable in the implementation.
 
 ## Diagnostic Scan
 
-Run comprehensive checks across multiple dimensions:
+Run comprehensive checks across 5 dimensions. Score each dimension 0-4 using the criteria below.
 
-1. **Accessibility (A11y)** - Check for:
-   - **Contrast issues**: Text contrast ratios < 4.5:1 (or 7:1 for AAA)
-   - **Missing ARIA**: Interactive elements without proper roles, labels, or states
-   - **Keyboard navigation**: Missing focus indicators, illogical tab order, keyboard traps
-   - **Semantic HTML**: Improper heading hierarchy, missing landmarks, divs instead of buttons
-   - **Alt text**: Missing or poor image descriptions
-   - **Form issues**: Inputs without labels, poor error messaging, missing required indicators
+### 1. Accessibility (A11y)
 
-2. **Performance** - Check for:
-   - **Layout thrashing**: Reading/writing layout properties in loops
-   - **Expensive animations**: Animating layout properties (width, height, top, left) instead of transform/opacity
-   - **Missing optimization**: Images without lazy loading, unoptimized assets, missing will-change
-   - **Bundle size**: Unnecessary imports, unused dependencies
-   - **Render performance**: Unnecessary re-renders, missing memoization
+**Check for**:
+- **Contrast issues**: Text contrast ratios < 4.5:1 (or 7:1 for AAA)
+- **Missing ARIA**: Interactive elements without proper roles, labels, or states
+- **Keyboard navigation**: Missing focus indicators, illogical tab order, keyboard traps
+- **Semantic HTML**: Improper heading hierarchy, missing landmarks, divs instead of buttons
+- **Alt text**: Missing or poor image descriptions
+- **Form issues**: Inputs without labels, poor error messaging, missing required indicators
 
-3. **Theming** - Check for:
-   - **Hard-coded colors**: Colors not using design tokens
-   - **Broken dark mode**: Missing dark mode variants, poor contrast in dark theme
-   - **Inconsistent tokens**: Using wrong tokens, mixing token types
-   - **Theme switching issues**: Values that don't update on theme change
+**Score 0-4**: 0=Inaccessible (fails WCAG A), 1=Major gaps (few ARIA labels, no keyboard nav), 2=Partial (some a11y effort, significant gaps), 3=Good (WCAG AA mostly met, minor gaps), 4=Excellent (WCAG AA fully met, approaches AAA)
 
-4. **Responsive Design** - Check for:
-   - **Fixed widths**: Hard-coded widths that break on mobile
-   - **Touch targets**: Interactive elements < 44x44px
-   - **Horizontal scroll**: Content overflow on narrow viewports
-   - **Text scaling**: Layouts that break when text size increases
-   - **Missing breakpoints**: No mobile/tablet variants
+### 2. Performance
 
-5. **Anti-Patterns (CRITICAL)** - Check against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill. Look for AI slop tells (AI color palette, gradient text, glassmorphism, hero metrics, card grids, generic fonts) and general design anti-patterns (gray on color, nested cards, bounce easing, redundant copy).
+**Check for**:
+- **Layout thrashing**: Reading/writing layout properties in loops
+- **Expensive animations**: Animating layout properties (width, height, top, left) instead of transform/opacity
+- **Missing optimization**: Images without lazy loading, unoptimized assets, missing will-change
+- **Bundle size**: Unnecessary imports, unused dependencies
+- **Render performance**: Unnecessary re-renders, missing memoization
 
-**CRITICAL**: This is an audit, not a fix. Document issues thoroughly with clear explanations of impact. Use other commands (normalize, optimize, harden, etc.) to fix issues after audit.
+**Score 0-4**: 0=Severe issues (layout thrash, unoptimized everything), 1=Major problems (no lazy loading, expensive animations), 2=Partial (some optimization, gaps remain), 3=Good (mostly optimized, minor improvements possible), 4=Excellent (fast, lean, well-optimized)
 
-## Generate Comprehensive Report
+### 3. Theming
 
-Create a detailed audit report with the following structure:
+**Check for**:
+- **Hard-coded colors**: Colors not using design tokens
+- **Broken dark mode**: Missing dark mode variants, poor contrast in dark theme
+- **Inconsistent tokens**: Using wrong tokens, mixing token types
+- **Theme switching issues**: Values that don't update on theme change
+
+**Score 0-4**: 0=No theming (hard-coded everything), 1=Minimal tokens (mostly hard-coded), 2=Partial (tokens exist but inconsistently used), 3=Good (tokens used, minor hard-coded values), 4=Excellent (full token system, dark mode works perfectly)
+
+### 4. Responsive Design
+
+**Check for**:
+- **Fixed widths**: Hard-coded widths that break on mobile
+- **Touch targets**: Interactive elements < 44x44px
+- **Horizontal scroll**: Content overflow on narrow viewports
+- **Text scaling**: Layouts that break when text size increases
+- **Missing breakpoints**: No mobile/tablet variants
+
+**Score 0-4**: 0=Desktop-only (breaks on mobile), 1=Major issues (some breakpoints, many failures), 2=Partial (works on mobile, rough edges), 3=Good (responsive, minor touch target or overflow issues), 4=Excellent (fluid, all viewports, proper touch targets)
+
+### 5. Anti-Patterns (CRITICAL)
+
+Check against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill. Look for AI slop tells (AI color palette, gradient text, glassmorphism, hero metrics, card grids, generic fonts) and general design anti-patterns (gray on color, nested cards, bounce easing, redundant copy).
+
+**Score 0-4**: 0=AI slop gallery (5+ tells), 1=Heavy AI aesthetic (3-4 tells), 2=Some tells (1-2 noticeable), 3=Mostly clean (subtle issues only), 4=No AI tells (distinctive, intentional design)
+
+## Generate Report
+
+### Audit Health Score
+
+| # | Dimension | Score | Key Finding |
+|---|-----------|-------|-------------|
+| 1 | Accessibility | ? | [most critical a11y issue or "--"] |
+| 2 | Performance | ? | |
+| 3 | Responsive Design | ? | |
+| 4 | Theming | ? | |
+| 5 | Anti-Patterns | ? | |
+| **Total** | | **??/20** | **[Rating band]** |
+
+**Rating bands**: 18-20 Excellent (minor polish), 14-17 Good (address weak dimensions), 10-13 Acceptable (significant work needed), 6-9 Poor (major overhaul), 0-5 Critical (fundamental issues)
 
 ### Anti-Patterns Verdict
-**Start here.** Pass/fail: Does this look AI-generated? List specific tells from the skill's Anti-Patterns section. Be brutally honest.
+**Start here.** Pass/fail: Does this look AI-generated? List specific tells. Be brutally honest.
 
 ### Executive Summary
-- Total issues found (count by severity)
-- Most critical issues (top 3-5)
-- Overall quality score (if applicable)
+- Audit Health Score: **??/20** ([rating band])
+- Total issues found (count by severity: P0/P1/P2/P3)
+- Top 3-5 critical issues
 - Recommended next steps
 
 ### Detailed Findings by Severity
 
+Tag every issue with **P0-P3 severity**:
+- **P0 Blocking**: Prevents task completion — fix immediately
+- **P1 Major**: Significant difficulty or WCAG AA violation — fix before release
+- **P2 Minor**: Annoyance, workaround exists — fix in next pass
+- **P3 Polish**: Nice-to-fix, no real user impact — fix if time permits
+
 For each issue, document:
-- **Location**: Where the issue occurs (component, file, line)
-- **Severity**: Critical / High / Medium / Low
-- **Category**: Accessibility / Performance / Theming / Responsive
-- **Description**: What the issue is
+- **[P?] Issue name**
+- **Location**: Component, file, line
+- **Category**: Accessibility / Performance / Theming / Responsive / Anti-Pattern
 - **Impact**: How it affects users
 - **WCAG/Standard**: Which standard it violates (if applicable)
 - **Recommendation**: How to fix it
-- **Suggested command**: Which command to use (prefer: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive — or other installed skills you're sure exist)
-
-#### Critical Issues
-[Issues that block core functionality or violate WCAG A]
-
-#### High-Severity Issues  
-[Significant usability/accessibility impact, WCAG AA violations]
-
-#### Medium-Severity Issues
-[Quality issues, WCAG AAA violations, performance concerns]
-
-#### Low-Severity Issues
-[Minor inconsistencies, optimization opportunities]
+- **Suggested command**: Which command to use (prefer: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive)
 
 ### Patterns & Systemic Issues
 
-Identify recurring problems:
+Identify recurring problems that indicate systemic gaps rather than one-off mistakes:
 - "Hard-coded colors appear in 15+ components, should use design tokens"
 - "Touch targets consistently too small (<44px) throughout mobile experience"
-- "Missing focus indicators on all custom interactive components"
 
 ### Positive Findings
 
-Note what's working well:
-- Good practices to maintain
-- Exemplary implementations to replicate elsewhere
+Note what's working well — good practices to maintain and replicate.
 
-### Recommendations by Priority
+## Recommended Actions
 
-Create actionable plan:
-1. **Immediate**: Critical blockers to fix first
-2. **Short-term**: High-severity issues (this sprint)
-3. **Medium-term**: Quality improvements (next sprint)
-4. **Long-term**: Nice-to-haves and optimizations
+List recommended commands in priority order (P0 first, then P1, then P2):
 
-### Suggested Commands for Fixes
+1. **[P?] `/command-name`** — Brief description (specific context from audit findings)
+2. **[P?] `/command-name`** — Brief description (specific context)
 
-Map issues to available commands. Prefer these: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive. You may also suggest other installed skills you're sure exist, but never invent commands.
+**Rules**: Only recommend commands from: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive. Map findings to the most appropriate command. End with `/polish` as the final step if any fixes were recommended.
 
-Examples:
-- "Use `/normalize` to align with design system (addresses N theming issues)"
-- "Use `/optimize` to improve performance (addresses N performance issues)"
-- "Use `/harden` to improve resilience (addresses N edge cases)"
+After presenting the summary, tell the user:
 
-**IMPORTANT**: Be thorough but actionable. Too many low-priority issues creates noise. Focus on what actually matters.
+> You can ask me to run these one at a time, all at once, or in any order you prefer.
+>
+> Re-run `/audit` after fixes to see your score improve.
+
+**IMPORTANT**: Be thorough but actionable. Too many P3 issues creates noise. Focus on what actually matters.
 
 **NEVER**:
 - Report issues without explaining impact (why does this matter?)
-- Mix severity levels inconsistently
-- Skip positive findings (celebrate what works)
 - Provide generic recommendations (be specific and actionable)
-- Forget to prioritize (everything can't be critical)
+- Skip positive findings (celebrate what works)
+- Forget to prioritize (everything can't be P0)
 - Report false positives without verification
 
-Remember: You're a quality auditor with exceptional attention to detail. Document systematically, prioritize ruthlessly, and provide clear paths to improvement. A good audit makes fixing easy.
\ No newline at end of file
+Remember: You're a technical quality auditor. Document systematically, prioritize ruthlessly, cite specific code locations, and provide clear paths to improvement.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/.cursor/skills/critique/SKILL.md b/.cursor/skills/critique/SKILL.md
index f964b3eee..3d2746f69 100644
--- a/.cursor/skills/critique/SKILL.md
+++ b/.cursor/skills/critique/SKILL.md
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 name: critique
-description: Evaluate design effectiveness from a UX perspective. Assesses visual hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, and overall design quality with actionable feedback. Use when the user asks to review, critique, evaluate, audit, or give feedback on a design, UI, or component.
+description: Evaluate design from a UX perspective, assessing visual hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, cognitive load, and overall quality with quantitative scoring, persona-based testing, and actionable feedback. Use when the user asks to review, critique, evaluate, or give feedback on a design or component.
 ---
 
 ## MANDATORY PREPARATION
@@ -9,9 +9,9 @@ Invoke /frontend-design — it contains design principles, anti-patterns, and th
 
 ---
 
-Conduct a holistic design critique, evaluating whether the interface actually works—not just technically, but as a designed experience. Think like a design director giving feedback.
+Conduct a holistic design critique, evaluating whether the interface actually works — not just technically, but as a designed experience. Think like a design director giving feedback.
 
-## Design Critique
+## Phase 1: Design Critique
 
 Evaluate the interface across these dimensions:
 
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ Evaluate the interface across these dimensions:
 
 **This is the most important check.** Does this look like every other AI-generated interface from 2024-2025?
 
-Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill—they are the fingerprints of AI-generated work. Check for the AI color palette, gradient text, dark mode with glowing accents, glassmorphism, hero metric layouts, identical card grids, generic fonts, and all other tells.
+Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill — they are the fingerprints of AI-generated work. Check for the AI color palette, gradient text, dark mode with glowing accents, glassmorphism, hero metric layouts, identical card grids, generic fonts, and all other tells.
 
 **The test**: If you showed this to someone and said "AI made this," would they believe you immediately? If yes, that's the problem.
 
@@ -29,17 +29,23 @@ Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design sk
 - Do size, color, and position communicate importance correctly?
 - Is there visual competition between elements that should have different weights?
 
-### 3. Information Architecture
+### 3. Information Architecture & Cognitive Load
+> *Consult [cognitive-load](reference/cognitive-load.md) for the working memory rule and 8-item checklist*
 - Is the structure intuitive? Would a new user understand the organization?
 - Is related content grouped logically?
-- Are there too many choices at once? (cognitive overload)
+- Are there too many choices at once? Count visible options at each decision point — if >4, flag it
 - Is the navigation clear and predictable?
+- **Progressive disclosure**: Is complexity revealed only when needed, or dumped on the user upfront?
+- **Run the 8-item cognitive load checklist** from the reference. Report failure count: 0–1 = low (good), 2–3 = moderate, 4+ = critical.
 
-### 4. Emotional Resonance
+### 4. Emotional Journey
 - What emotion does this interface evoke? Is that intentional?
 - Does it match the brand personality?
-- Does it feel trustworthy, approachable, premium, playful—whatever it should feel?
+- Does it feel trustworthy, approachable, premium, playful — whatever it should feel?
 - Would the target user feel "this is for me"?
+- **Peak-end rule**: Is the most intense moment positive? Does the experience end well (confirmation, celebration, clear next step)?
+- **Emotional valleys**: Check for onboarding frustration, error cliffs, feature discovery gaps, or anxiety spikes at high-stakes moments (payment, delete, commit)
+- **Interventions at negative moments**: Are there design interventions where users are likely to feel frustrated or anxious? (progress indicators, reassurance copy, undo options, social proof)
 
 ### 5. Discoverability & Affordance
 - Are interactive elements obviously interactive?
@@ -63,7 +69,7 @@ Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design sk
 - Is color used to communicate, not just decorate?
 - Does the palette feel cohesive?
 - Are accent colors drawing attention to the right things?
-- Does it work for colorblind users? (not just technically—does meaning still come through?)
+- Does it work for colorblind users? (not just technically — does meaning still come through?)
 
 ### 9. States & Edge Cases
 - Empty states: Do they guide users toward action, or just say "nothing here"?
@@ -77,41 +83,117 @@ Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design sk
 - Are labels and buttons unambiguous?
 - Does error copy help users fix the problem?
 
-## Generate Critique Report
+## Phase 2: Present Findings
 
 Structure your feedback as a design director would:
 
+### Design Health Score
+> *Consult [heuristics-scoring](reference/heuristics-scoring.md)*
+
+Score each of Nielsen's 10 heuristics 0–4. Present as a table:
+
+| # | Heuristic | Score | Key Issue |
+|---|-----------|-------|-----------|
+| 1 | Visibility of System Status | ? | [specific finding or "—" if solid] |
+| 2 | Match System / Real World | ? | |
+| 3 | User Control and Freedom | ? | |
+| 4 | Consistency and Standards | ? | |
+| 5 | Error Prevention | ? | |
+| 6 | Recognition Rather Than Recall | ? | |
+| 7 | Flexibility and Efficiency | ? | |
+| 8 | Aesthetic and Minimalist Design | ? | |
+| 9 | Error Recovery | ? | |
+| 10 | Help and Documentation | ? | |
+| **Total** | | **??/40** | **[Rating band]** |
+
+Be honest with scores. A 4 means genuinely excellent. Most real interfaces score 20–32.
+
 ### Anti-Patterns Verdict
 **Start here.** Pass/fail: Does this look AI-generated? List specific tells from the skill's Anti-Patterns section. Be brutally honest.
 
 ### Overall Impression
-A brief gut reaction—what works, what doesn't, and the single biggest opportunity.
+A brief gut reaction — what works, what doesn't, and the single biggest opportunity.
 
 ### What's Working
-Highlight 2-3 things done well. Be specific about why they work.
+Highlight 2–3 things done well. Be specific about why they work.
 
 ### Priority Issues
-The 3-5 most impactful design problems, ordered by importance:
+The 3–5 most impactful design problems, ordered by importance.
 
-For each issue:
-- **What**: Name the problem clearly
+For each issue, tag with **P0–P3 severity** (consult [heuristics-scoring](reference/heuristics-scoring.md) for severity definitions):
+- **[P?] What**: Name the problem clearly
 - **Why it matters**: How this hurts users or undermines goals
 - **Fix**: What to do about it (be concrete)
-- **Command**: Which command to use (prefer: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive — or other installed skills you're sure exist)
+- **Suggested command**: Which command could address this (from: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive)
+
+### Persona Red Flags
+> *Consult [personas](reference/personas.md)*
+
+Auto-select 2–3 personas most relevant to this interface type (use the selection table in the reference). If `.cursorrules` contains a `## Design Context` section from `teach-impeccable`, also generate 1–2 project-specific personas from the audience/brand info.
+
+For each selected persona, walk through the primary user action and list specific red flags found:
+
+**Alex (Power User)**: No keyboard shortcuts detected. Form requires 8 clicks for primary action. Forced modal onboarding. ⚠️ High abandonment risk.
+
+**Jordan (First-Timer)**: Icon-only nav in sidebar. Technical jargon in error messages ("404 Not Found"). No visible help. ⚠️ Will abandon at step 2.
+
+Be specific — name the exact elements and interactions that fail each persona. Don't write generic persona descriptions; write what broke for them.
 
 ### Minor Observations
 Quick notes on smaller issues worth addressing.
 
-### Questions to Consider
-Provocative questions that might unlock better solutions:
-- "What if the primary action were more prominent?"
-- "Does this need to feel this complex?"
-- "What would a confident version of this look like?"
-
 **Remember**:
-- Be direct—vague feedback wastes everyone's time
-- Be specific—"the submit button" not "some elements"
+- Be direct — vague feedback wastes everyone's time
+- Be specific — "the submit button" not "some elements"
 - Say what's wrong AND why it matters to users
 - Give concrete suggestions, not just "consider exploring..."
-- Prioritize ruthlessly—if everything is important, nothing is
-- Don't soften criticism—developers need honest feedback to ship great design
\ No newline at end of file
+- Prioritize ruthlessly — if everything is important, nothing is
+- Don't soften criticism — developers need honest feedback to ship great design
+
+## Phase 3: Ask the User
+
+**After presenting findings**, use targeted questions based on what was actually found. ask the user directly to clarify what you cannot infer. These answers will shape the action plan.
+
+Ask questions along these lines (adapt to the specific findings — do NOT ask generic questions):
+
+1. **Priority direction**: Based on the issues found, ask which category matters most to the user right now. For example: "I found problems with visual hierarchy, color usage, and information overload. Which area should we tackle first?" Offer the top 2–3 issue categories as options.
+
+2. **Design intent**: If the critique found a tonal mismatch, ask whether it was intentional. For example: "The interface feels clinical and corporate. Is that the intended tone, or should it feel warmer/bolder/more playful?" Offer 2–3 tonal directions as options based on what would fix the issues found.
+
+3. **Scope**: Ask how much the user wants to take on. For example: "I found N issues. Want to address everything, or focus on the top 3?" Offer scope options like "Top 3 only", "All issues", "Critical issues only".
+
+4. **Constraints** (optional — only ask if relevant): If the findings touch many areas, ask if anything is off-limits. For example: "Should any sections stay as-is?" This prevents the plan from touching things the user considers done.
+
+**Rules for questions**:
+- Every question must reference specific findings from Phase 2 — never ask generic "who is your audience?" questions
+- Keep it to 2–4 questions maximum — respect the user's time
+- Offer concrete options, not open-ended prompts
+- If findings are straightforward (e.g., only 1–2 clear issues), skip questions and go directly to Phase 4
+
+## Phase 4: Recommended Actions
+
+**After receiving the user's answers**, present a prioritized action summary reflecting the user's priorities and scope from Phase 3.
+
+### Action Summary
+
+List recommended commands in priority order, based on the user's answers:
+
+1. **`/command-name`** — Brief description of what to fix (specific context from critique findings)
+2. **`/command-name`** — Brief description (specific context)
+...
+
+**Rules for recommendations**:
+- Only recommend commands from: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive
+- Order by the user's stated priorities first, then by impact
+- Each item's description should carry enough context that the command knows what to focus on
+- Map each Priority Issue to the appropriate command
+- Skip commands that would address zero issues
+- If the user chose a limited scope, only include items within that scope
+- If the user marked areas as off-limits, exclude commands that would touch those areas
+- End with `/polish` as the final step if any fixes were recommended
+
+After presenting the summary, tell the user:
+
+> You can ask me to run these one at a time, all at once, or in any order you prefer.
+>
+> Re-run `/critique` after fixes to see your score improve.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/.cursor/skills/critique/reference/cognitive-load.md b/.cursor/skills/critique/reference/cognitive-load.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..313df166b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.cursor/skills/critique/reference/cognitive-load.md
@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+# Cognitive Load Assessment
+
+Cognitive load is the total mental effort required to use an interface. Overloaded users make mistakes, get frustrated, and leave. This reference helps identify and fix cognitive overload.
+
+---
+
+## Three Types of Cognitive Load
+
+### Intrinsic Load — The Task Itself
+Complexity inherent to what the user is trying to do. You can't eliminate this, but you can structure it.
+
+**Manage it by**:
+- Breaking complex tasks into discrete steps
+- Providing scaffolding (templates, defaults, examples)
+- Progressive disclosure — show what's needed now, hide the rest
+- Grouping related decisions together
+
+### Extraneous Load — Bad Design
+Mental effort caused by poor design choices. **Eliminate this ruthlessly** — it's pure waste.
+
+**Common sources**:
+- Confusing navigation that requires mental mapping
+- Unclear labels that force users to guess meaning
+- Visual clutter competing for attention
+- Inconsistent patterns that prevent learning
+- Unnecessary steps between user intent and result
+
+### Germane Load — Learning Effort
+Mental effort spent building understanding. This is *good* cognitive load — it leads to mastery.
+
+**Support it by**:
+- Progressive disclosure that reveals complexity gradually
+- Consistent patterns that reward learning
+- Feedback that confirms correct understanding
+- Onboarding that teaches through action, not walls of text
+
+---
+
+## Cognitive Load Checklist
+
+Evaluate the interface against these 8 items:
+
+- [ ] **Single focus**: Can the user complete their primary task without distraction from competing elements?
+- [ ] **Chunking**: Is information presented in digestible groups (≤4 items per group)?
+- [ ] **Grouping**: Are related items visually grouped together (proximity, borders, shared background)?
+- [ ] **Visual hierarchy**: Is it immediately clear what's most important on the screen?
+- [ ] **One thing at a time**: Can the user focus on a single decision before moving to the next?
+- [ ] **Minimal choices**: Are decisions simplified (≤4 visible options at any decision point)?
+- [ ] **Working memory**: Does the user need to remember information from a previous screen to act on the current one?
+- [ ] **Progressive disclosure**: Is complexity revealed only when the user needs it?
+
+**Scoring**: Count the failed items. 0–1 failures = low cognitive load (good). 2–3 = moderate (address soon). 4+ = high cognitive load (critical fix needed).
+
+---
+
+## The Working Memory Rule
+
+**Humans can hold ≤4 items in working memory at once** (Miller's Law revised by Cowan, 2001).
+
+At any decision point, count the number of distinct options, actions, or pieces of information a user must simultaneously consider:
+- **≤4 items**: Within working memory limits — manageable
+- **5–7 items**: Pushing the boundary — consider grouping or progressive disclosure
+- **8+ items**: Overloaded — users will skip, misclick, or abandon
+
+**Practical applications**:
+- Navigation menus: ≤5 top-level items (group the rest under clear categories)
+- Form sections: ≤4 fields visible per group before a visual break
+- Action buttons: 1 primary, 1–2 secondary, group the rest in a menu
+- Dashboard widgets: ≤4 key metrics visible without scrolling
+- Pricing tiers: ≤3 options (more causes analysis paralysis)
+
+---
+
+## Common Cognitive Load Violations
+
+### 1. The Wall of Options
+**Problem**: Presenting 10+ choices at once with no hierarchy.
+**Fix**: Group into categories, highlight recommended, use progressive disclosure.
+
+### 2. The Memory Bridge
+**Problem**: User must remember info from step 1 to complete step 3.
+**Fix**: Keep relevant context visible, or repeat it where it's needed.
+
+### 3. The Hidden Navigation
+**Problem**: User must build a mental map of where things are.
+**Fix**: Always show current location (breadcrumbs, active states, progress indicators).
+
+### 4. The Jargon Barrier
+**Problem**: Technical or domain language forces translation effort.
+**Fix**: Use plain language. If domain terms are unavoidable, define them inline.
+
+### 5. The Visual Noise Floor
+**Problem**: Every element has the same visual weight — nothing stands out.
+**Fix**: Establish clear hierarchy: one primary element, 2–3 secondary, everything else muted.
+
+### 6. The Inconsistent Pattern
+**Problem**: Similar actions work differently in different places.
+**Fix**: Standardize interaction patterns. Same type of action = same type of UI.
+
+### 7. The Multi-Task Demand
+**Problem**: Interface requires processing multiple simultaneous inputs (reading + deciding + navigating).
+**Fix**: Sequence the steps. Let the user do one thing at a time.
+
+### 8. The Context Switch
+**Problem**: User must jump between screens/tabs/modals to gather info for a single decision.
+**Fix**: Co-locate the information needed for each decision. Reduce back-and-forth.
diff --git a/.cursor/skills/critique/reference/heuristics-scoring.md b/.cursor/skills/critique/reference/heuristics-scoring.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..fd5b1b08b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.cursor/skills/critique/reference/heuristics-scoring.md
@@ -0,0 +1,234 @@
+# Heuristics Scoring Guide
+
+Score each of Nielsen's 10 Usability Heuristics on a 0–4 scale. Be honest — a 4 means genuinely excellent, not "good enough."
+
+## Nielsen's 10 Heuristics
+
+### 1. Visibility of System Status
+
+Keep users informed about what's happening through timely, appropriate feedback.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Loading indicators during async operations
+- Confirmation of user actions (save, submit, delete)
+- Progress indicators for multi-step processes
+- Current location in navigation (breadcrumbs, active states)
+- Form validation feedback (inline, not just on submit)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | No feedback — user is guessing what happened |
+| 1 | Rare feedback — most actions produce no visible response |
+| 2 | Partial — some states communicated, major gaps remain |
+| 3 | Good — most operations give clear feedback, minor gaps |
+| 4 | Excellent — every action confirms, progress is always visible |
+
+### 2. Match Between System and Real World
+
+Speak the user's language. Follow real-world conventions. Information appears in natural, logical order.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Familiar terminology (no unexplained jargon)
+- Logical information order matching user expectations
+- Recognizable icons and metaphors
+- Domain-appropriate language for the target audience
+- Natural reading flow (left-to-right, top-to-bottom priority)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Pure tech jargon, alien to users |
+| 1 | Mostly confusing — requires domain expertise to navigate |
+| 2 | Mixed — some plain language, some jargon leaks through |
+| 3 | Mostly natural — occasional term needs context |
+| 4 | Speaks the user's language fluently throughout |
+
+### 3. User Control and Freedom
+
+Users need a clear "emergency exit" from unwanted states without extended dialogue.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Undo/redo functionality
+- Cancel buttons on forms and modals
+- Clear navigation back to safety (home, previous)
+- Easy way to clear filters, search, selections
+- Escape from long or multi-step processes
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Users get trapped — no way out without refreshing |
+| 1 | Difficult exits — must find obscure paths to escape |
+| 2 | Some exits — main flows have escape, edge cases don't |
+| 3 | Good control — users can exit and undo most actions |
+| 4 | Full control — undo, cancel, back, and escape everywhere |
+
+### 4. Consistency and Standards
+
+Users shouldn't wonder whether different words, situations, or actions mean the same thing.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Consistent terminology throughout the interface
+- Same actions produce same results everywhere
+- Platform conventions followed (standard UI patterns)
+- Visual consistency (colors, typography, spacing, components)
+- Consistent interaction patterns (same gesture = same behavior)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Inconsistent everywhere — feels like different products stitched together |
+| 1 | Many inconsistencies — similar things look/behave differently |
+| 2 | Partially consistent — main flows match, details diverge |
+| 3 | Mostly consistent — occasional deviation, nothing confusing |
+| 4 | Fully consistent — cohesive system, predictable behavior |
+
+### 5. Error Prevention
+
+Better than good error messages is a design that prevents problems in the first place.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Confirmation before destructive actions (delete, overwrite)
+- Constraints preventing invalid input (date pickers, dropdowns)
+- Smart defaults that reduce errors
+- Clear labels that prevent misunderstanding
+- Autosave and draft recovery
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Errors easy to make — no guardrails anywhere |
+| 1 | Few safeguards — some inputs validated, most aren't |
+| 2 | Partial prevention — common errors caught, edge cases slip |
+| 3 | Good prevention — most error paths blocked proactively |
+| 4 | Excellent — errors nearly impossible through smart constraints |
+
+### 6. Recognition Rather Than Recall
+
+Minimize memory load. Make objects, actions, and options visible or easily retrievable.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Visible options (not buried in hidden menus)
+- Contextual help when needed (tooltips, inline hints)
+- Recent items and history
+- Autocomplete and suggestions
+- Labels on icons (not icon-only navigation)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Heavy memorization — users must remember paths and commands |
+| 1 | Mostly recall — many hidden features, few visible cues |
+| 2 | Some aids — main actions visible, secondary features hidden |
+| 3 | Good recognition — most things discoverable, few memory demands |
+| 4 | Everything discoverable — users never need to memorize |
+
+### 7. Flexibility and Efficiency of Use
+
+Accelerators — invisible to novices — speed up expert interaction.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Keyboard shortcuts for common actions
+- Customizable interface elements
+- Recent items and favorites
+- Bulk/batch actions
+- Power user features that don't complicate the basics
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | One rigid path — no shortcuts or alternatives |
+| 1 | Limited flexibility — few alternatives to the main path |
+| 2 | Some shortcuts — basic keyboard support, limited bulk actions |
+| 3 | Good accelerators — keyboard nav, some customization |
+| 4 | Highly flexible — multiple paths, power features, customizable |
+
+### 8. Aesthetic and Minimalist Design
+
+Interfaces should not contain irrelevant or rarely needed information. Every element should serve a purpose.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Only necessary information visible at each step
+- Clear visual hierarchy directing attention
+- Purposeful use of color and emphasis
+- No decorative clutter competing for attention
+- Focused, uncluttered layouts
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Overwhelming — everything competes for attention equally |
+| 1 | Cluttered — too much noise, hard to find what matters |
+| 2 | Some clutter — main content clear, periphery noisy |
+| 3 | Mostly clean — focused design, minor visual noise |
+| 4 | Perfectly minimal — every element earns its pixel |
+
+### 9. Help Users Recognize, Diagnose, and Recover from Errors
+
+Error messages should use plain language, precisely indicate the problem, and constructively suggest a solution.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Plain language error messages (no error codes for users)
+- Specific problem identification ("Email is missing @" not "Invalid input")
+- Actionable recovery suggestions
+- Errors displayed near the source of the problem
+- Non-blocking error handling (don't wipe the form)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Cryptic errors — codes, jargon, or no message at all |
+| 1 | Vague errors — "Something went wrong" with no guidance |
+| 2 | Clear but unhelpful — names the problem but not the fix |
+| 3 | Clear with suggestions — identifies problem and offers next steps |
+| 4 | Perfect recovery — pinpoints issue, suggests fix, preserves user work |
+
+### 10. Help and Documentation
+
+Even if the system is usable without docs, help should be easy to find, task-focused, and concise.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Searchable help or documentation
+- Contextual help (tooltips, inline hints, guided tours)
+- Task-focused organization (not feature-organized)
+- Concise, scannable content
+- Easy access without leaving current context
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | No help available anywhere |
+| 1 | Help exists but hard to find or irrelevant |
+| 2 | Basic help — FAQ or docs exist, not contextual |
+| 3 | Good documentation — searchable, mostly task-focused |
+| 4 | Excellent contextual help — right info at the right moment |
+
+---
+
+## Score Summary
+
+**Total possible**: 40 points (10 heuristics × 4 max)
+
+| Score Range | Rating | What It Means |
+|-------------|--------|---------------|
+| 36–40 | Excellent | Minor polish only — ship it |
+| 28–35 | Good | Address weak areas, solid foundation |
+| 20–27 | Acceptable | Significant improvements needed before users are happy |
+| 12–19 | Poor | Major UX overhaul required — core experience broken |
+| 0–11 | Critical | Redesign needed — unusable in current state |
+
+---
+
+## Issue Severity (P0–P3)
+
+Tag each individual issue found during scoring with a priority level:
+
+| Priority | Name | Description | Action |
+|----------|------|-------------|--------|
+| **P0** | Blocking | Prevents task completion entirely | Fix immediately — this is a showstopper |
+| **P1** | Major | Causes significant difficulty or confusion | Fix before release |
+| **P2** | Minor | Annoyance, but workaround exists | Fix in next pass |
+| **P3** | Polish | Nice-to-fix, no real user impact | Fix if time permits |
+
+**Tip**: If you're unsure between two levels, ask: "Would a user contact support about this?" If yes, it's at least P1.
diff --git a/.cursor/skills/critique/reference/personas.md b/.cursor/skills/critique/reference/personas.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..84689b598
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.cursor/skills/critique/reference/personas.md
@@ -0,0 +1,178 @@
+# Persona-Based Design Testing
+
+Test the interface through the eyes of 5 distinct user archetypes. Each persona exposes different failure modes that a single "design director" perspective would miss.
+
+**How to use**: Select 2–3 personas most relevant to the interface being critiqued. Walk through the primary user action as each persona. Report specific red flags — not generic concerns.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Impatient Power User — "Alex"
+
+**Profile**: Expert with similar products. Expects efficiency, hates hand-holding. Will find shortcuts or leave.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Skips all onboarding and instructions
+- Looks for keyboard shortcuts immediately
+- Tries to bulk-select, batch-edit, and automate
+- Gets frustrated by required steps that feel unnecessary
+- Abandons if anything feels slow or patronizing
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Can Alex complete the core task in under 60 seconds?
+- Are there keyboard shortcuts for common actions?
+- Can onboarding be skipped entirely?
+- Do modals have keyboard dismiss (Esc)?
+- Is there a "power user" path (shortcuts, bulk actions)?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Forced tutorials or unskippable onboarding
+- No keyboard navigation for primary actions
+- Slow animations that can't be skipped
+- One-item-at-a-time workflows where batch would be natural
+- Redundant confirmation steps for low-risk actions
+
+---
+
+## 2. Confused First-Timer — "Jordan"
+
+**Profile**: Never used this type of product. Needs guidance at every step. Will abandon rather than figure it out.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Reads all instructions carefully
+- Hesitates before clicking anything unfamiliar
+- Looks for help or support constantly
+- Misunderstands jargon and abbreviations
+- Takes the most literal interpretation of any label
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Is the first action obviously clear within 5 seconds?
+- Are all icons labeled with text?
+- Is there contextual help at decision points?
+- Does terminology assume prior knowledge?
+- Is there a clear "back" or "undo" at every step?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Icon-only navigation with no labels
+- Technical jargon without explanation
+- No visible help option or guidance
+- Ambiguous next steps after completing an action
+- No confirmation that an action succeeded
+
+---
+
+## 3. Accessibility-Dependent User — "Sam"
+
+**Profile**: Uses screen reader (VoiceOver/NVDA), keyboard-only navigation. May have low vision, motor impairment, or cognitive differences.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Tabs through the interface linearly
+- Relies on ARIA labels and heading structure
+- Cannot see hover states or visual-only indicators
+- Needs adequate color contrast (4.5:1 minimum)
+- May use browser zoom up to 200%
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Can the entire primary flow be completed keyboard-only?
+- Are all interactive elements focusable with visible focus indicators?
+- Do images have meaningful alt text?
+- Is color contrast WCAG AA compliant (4.5:1 for text)?
+- Does the screen reader announce state changes (loading, success, errors)?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Click-only interactions with no keyboard alternative
+- Missing or invisible focus indicators
+- Meaning conveyed by color alone (red = error, green = success)
+- Unlabeled form fields or buttons
+- Time-limited actions without extension option
+- Custom components that break screen reader flow
+
+---
+
+## 4. Deliberate Stress Tester — "Riley"
+
+**Profile**: Methodical user who pushes interfaces beyond the happy path. Tests edge cases, tries unexpected inputs, and probes for gaps in the experience.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Tests edge cases intentionally (empty states, long strings, special characters)
+- Submits forms with unexpected data (emoji, RTL text, very long values)
+- Tries to break workflows by navigating backwards, refreshing mid-flow, or opening in multiple tabs
+- Looks for inconsistencies between what the UI promises and what actually happens
+- Documents problems methodically
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- What happens at the edges (0 items, 1000 items, very long text)?
+- Do error states recover gracefully or leave the UI in a broken state?
+- What happens on refresh mid-workflow? Is state preserved?
+- Are there features that appear to work but produce broken results?
+- How does the UI handle unexpected input (emoji, special chars, paste from Excel)?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Features that appear to work but silently fail or produce wrong results
+- Error handling that exposes technical details or leaves UI in a broken state
+- Empty states that show nothing useful ("No results" with no guidance)
+- Workflows that lose user data on refresh or navigation
+- Inconsistent behavior between similar interactions in different parts of the UI
+
+---
+
+## 5. Distracted Mobile User — "Casey"
+
+**Profile**: Using phone one-handed on the go. Frequently interrupted. Possibly on a slow connection.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Uses thumb only — prefers bottom-of-screen actions
+- Gets interrupted mid-flow and returns later
+- Switches between apps frequently
+- Has limited attention span and low patience
+- Types as little as possible, prefers taps and selections
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Are primary actions in the thumb zone (bottom half of screen)?
+- Is state preserved if the user leaves and returns?
+- Does it work on slow connections (3G)?
+- Can forms leverage autocomplete and smart defaults?
+- Are touch targets at least 44×44pt?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Important actions positioned at the top of the screen (unreachable by thumb)
+- No state persistence — progress lost on tab switch or interruption
+- Large text inputs required where selection would work
+- Heavy assets loading on every page (no lazy loading)
+- Tiny tap targets or targets too close together
+
+---
+
+## Selecting Personas
+
+Choose personas based on the interface type:
+
+| Interface Type | Primary Personas | Why |
+|---------------|-----------------|-----|
+| Landing page / marketing | Jordan, Riley, Casey | First impressions, trust, mobile |
+| Dashboard / admin | Alex, Sam | Power users, accessibility |
+| E-commerce / checkout | Casey, Riley, Jordan | Mobile, edge cases, clarity |
+| Onboarding flow | Jordan, Casey | Confusion, interruption |
+| Data-heavy / analytics | Alex, Sam | Efficiency, keyboard nav |
+| Form-heavy / wizard | Jordan, Sam, Casey | Clarity, accessibility, mobile |
+
+---
+
+## Project-Specific Personas
+
+If `.cursorrules` contains a `## Design Context` section (generated by `teach-impeccable`), derive 1–2 additional personas from the audience and brand information:
+
+1. Read the target audience description
+2. Identify the primary user archetype not covered by the 5 predefined personas
+3. Create a persona following this template:
+
+```
+### [Role] — "[Name]"
+
+**Profile**: [2-3 key characteristics derived from Design Context]
+
+**Behaviors**: [3-4 specific behaviors based on the described audience]
+
+**Red Flags**: [3-4 things that would alienate this specific user type]
+```
+
+Only generate project-specific personas when real Design Context data is available. Don't invent audience details — use the 5 predefined personas when no context exists.
diff --git a/.gemini/skills/audit/SKILL.md b/.gemini/skills/audit/SKILL.md
index 6490cb9aa..6dc747d60 100644
--- a/.gemini/skills/audit/SKILL.md
+++ b/.gemini/skills/audit/SKILL.md
@@ -1,123 +1,145 @@
 ---
 name: audit
-description: Perform a comprehensive audit of interface quality across accessibility, performance, theming, and responsive design. Generates a prioritized report with severity ratings. Use when the user wants a design review, accessibility check, quality audit, or a full list of UI issues to fix.
+description: Run technical quality checks across accessibility, performance, theming, responsive design, and anti-patterns. Generates a scored report with P0-P3 severity ratings and actionable plan. Use when the user wants an accessibility check, performance audit, or technical quality review.
 ---
 
-Run systematic quality checks and generate a comprehensive audit report with prioritized issues and actionable recommendations. Don't fix issues - document them for other commands to address.
+## MANDATORY PREPARATION
 
-**First**: Invoke /frontend-design for design principles and anti-patterns.
+Invoke /frontend-design — it contains design principles, anti-patterns, and the **Context Gathering Protocol**. Follow the protocol before proceeding — if no design context exists yet, you MUST run /teach-impeccable first.
+
+---
+
+Run systematic **technical** quality checks and generate a comprehensive report. Don't fix issues — document them for other commands to address.
+
+This is a code-level audit, not a design critique. Check what's measurable and verifiable in the implementation.
 
 ## Diagnostic Scan
 
-Run comprehensive checks across multiple dimensions:
+Run comprehensive checks across 5 dimensions. Score each dimension 0-4 using the criteria below.
 
-1. **Accessibility (A11y)** - Check for:
-   - **Contrast issues**: Text contrast ratios < 4.5:1 (or 7:1 for AAA)
-   - **Missing ARIA**: Interactive elements without proper roles, labels, or states
-   - **Keyboard navigation**: Missing focus indicators, illogical tab order, keyboard traps
-   - **Semantic HTML**: Improper heading hierarchy, missing landmarks, divs instead of buttons
-   - **Alt text**: Missing or poor image descriptions
-   - **Form issues**: Inputs without labels, poor error messaging, missing required indicators
+### 1. Accessibility (A11y)
 
-2. **Performance** - Check for:
-   - **Layout thrashing**: Reading/writing layout properties in loops
-   - **Expensive animations**: Animating layout properties (width, height, top, left) instead of transform/opacity
-   - **Missing optimization**: Images without lazy loading, unoptimized assets, missing will-change
-   - **Bundle size**: Unnecessary imports, unused dependencies
-   - **Render performance**: Unnecessary re-renders, missing memoization
+**Check for**:
+- **Contrast issues**: Text contrast ratios < 4.5:1 (or 7:1 for AAA)
+- **Missing ARIA**: Interactive elements without proper roles, labels, or states
+- **Keyboard navigation**: Missing focus indicators, illogical tab order, keyboard traps
+- **Semantic HTML**: Improper heading hierarchy, missing landmarks, divs instead of buttons
+- **Alt text**: Missing or poor image descriptions
+- **Form issues**: Inputs without labels, poor error messaging, missing required indicators
 
-3. **Theming** - Check for:
-   - **Hard-coded colors**: Colors not using design tokens
-   - **Broken dark mode**: Missing dark mode variants, poor contrast in dark theme
-   - **Inconsistent tokens**: Using wrong tokens, mixing token types
-   - **Theme switching issues**: Values that don't update on theme change
+**Score 0-4**: 0=Inaccessible (fails WCAG A), 1=Major gaps (few ARIA labels, no keyboard nav), 2=Partial (some a11y effort, significant gaps), 3=Good (WCAG AA mostly met, minor gaps), 4=Excellent (WCAG AA fully met, approaches AAA)
 
-4. **Responsive Design** - Check for:
-   - **Fixed widths**: Hard-coded widths that break on mobile
-   - **Touch targets**: Interactive elements < 44x44px
-   - **Horizontal scroll**: Content overflow on narrow viewports
-   - **Text scaling**: Layouts that break when text size increases
-   - **Missing breakpoints**: No mobile/tablet variants
+### 2. Performance
 
-5. **Anti-Patterns (CRITICAL)** - Check against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill. Look for AI slop tells (AI color palette, gradient text, glassmorphism, hero metrics, card grids, generic fonts) and general design anti-patterns (gray on color, nested cards, bounce easing, redundant copy).
+**Check for**:
+- **Layout thrashing**: Reading/writing layout properties in loops
+- **Expensive animations**: Animating layout properties (width, height, top, left) instead of transform/opacity
+- **Missing optimization**: Images without lazy loading, unoptimized assets, missing will-change
+- **Bundle size**: Unnecessary imports, unused dependencies
+- **Render performance**: Unnecessary re-renders, missing memoization
 
-**CRITICAL**: This is an audit, not a fix. Document issues thoroughly with clear explanations of impact. Use other commands (normalize, optimize, harden, etc.) to fix issues after audit.
+**Score 0-4**: 0=Severe issues (layout thrash, unoptimized everything), 1=Major problems (no lazy loading, expensive animations), 2=Partial (some optimization, gaps remain), 3=Good (mostly optimized, minor improvements possible), 4=Excellent (fast, lean, well-optimized)
 
-## Generate Comprehensive Report
+### 3. Theming
 
-Create a detailed audit report with the following structure:
+**Check for**:
+- **Hard-coded colors**: Colors not using design tokens
+- **Broken dark mode**: Missing dark mode variants, poor contrast in dark theme
+- **Inconsistent tokens**: Using wrong tokens, mixing token types
+- **Theme switching issues**: Values that don't update on theme change
+
+**Score 0-4**: 0=No theming (hard-coded everything), 1=Minimal tokens (mostly hard-coded), 2=Partial (tokens exist but inconsistently used), 3=Good (tokens used, minor hard-coded values), 4=Excellent (full token system, dark mode works perfectly)
+
+### 4. Responsive Design
+
+**Check for**:
+- **Fixed widths**: Hard-coded widths that break on mobile
+- **Touch targets**: Interactive elements < 44x44px
+- **Horizontal scroll**: Content overflow on narrow viewports
+- **Text scaling**: Layouts that break when text size increases
+- **Missing breakpoints**: No mobile/tablet variants
+
+**Score 0-4**: 0=Desktop-only (breaks on mobile), 1=Major issues (some breakpoints, many failures), 2=Partial (works on mobile, rough edges), 3=Good (responsive, minor touch target or overflow issues), 4=Excellent (fluid, all viewports, proper touch targets)
+
+### 5. Anti-Patterns (CRITICAL)
+
+Check against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill. Look for AI slop tells (AI color palette, gradient text, glassmorphism, hero metrics, card grids, generic fonts) and general design anti-patterns (gray on color, nested cards, bounce easing, redundant copy).
+
+**Score 0-4**: 0=AI slop gallery (5+ tells), 1=Heavy AI aesthetic (3-4 tells), 2=Some tells (1-2 noticeable), 3=Mostly clean (subtle issues only), 4=No AI tells (distinctive, intentional design)
+
+## Generate Report
+
+### Audit Health Score
+
+| # | Dimension | Score | Key Finding |
+|---|-----------|-------|-------------|
+| 1 | Accessibility | ? | [most critical a11y issue or "--"] |
+| 2 | Performance | ? | |
+| 3 | Responsive Design | ? | |
+| 4 | Theming | ? | |
+| 5 | Anti-Patterns | ? | |
+| **Total** | | **??/20** | **[Rating band]** |
+
+**Rating bands**: 18-20 Excellent (minor polish), 14-17 Good (address weak dimensions), 10-13 Acceptable (significant work needed), 6-9 Poor (major overhaul), 0-5 Critical (fundamental issues)
 
 ### Anti-Patterns Verdict
-**Start here.** Pass/fail: Does this look AI-generated? List specific tells from the skill's Anti-Patterns section. Be brutally honest.
+**Start here.** Pass/fail: Does this look AI-generated? List specific tells. Be brutally honest.
 
 ### Executive Summary
-- Total issues found (count by severity)
-- Most critical issues (top 3-5)
-- Overall quality score (if applicable)
+- Audit Health Score: **??/20** ([rating band])
+- Total issues found (count by severity: P0/P1/P2/P3)
+- Top 3-5 critical issues
 - Recommended next steps
 
 ### Detailed Findings by Severity
 
+Tag every issue with **P0-P3 severity**:
+- **P0 Blocking**: Prevents task completion — fix immediately
+- **P1 Major**: Significant difficulty or WCAG AA violation — fix before release
+- **P2 Minor**: Annoyance, workaround exists — fix in next pass
+- **P3 Polish**: Nice-to-fix, no real user impact — fix if time permits
+
 For each issue, document:
-- **Location**: Where the issue occurs (component, file, line)
-- **Severity**: Critical / High / Medium / Low
-- **Category**: Accessibility / Performance / Theming / Responsive
-- **Description**: What the issue is
+- **[P?] Issue name**
+- **Location**: Component, file, line
+- **Category**: Accessibility / Performance / Theming / Responsive / Anti-Pattern
 - **Impact**: How it affects users
 - **WCAG/Standard**: Which standard it violates (if applicable)
 - **Recommendation**: How to fix it
-- **Suggested command**: Which command to use (prefer: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive — or other installed skills you're sure exist)
-
-#### Critical Issues
-[Issues that block core functionality or violate WCAG A]
-
-#### High-Severity Issues  
-[Significant usability/accessibility impact, WCAG AA violations]
-
-#### Medium-Severity Issues
-[Quality issues, WCAG AAA violations, performance concerns]
-
-#### Low-Severity Issues
-[Minor inconsistencies, optimization opportunities]
+- **Suggested command**: Which command to use (prefer: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive)
 
 ### Patterns & Systemic Issues
 
-Identify recurring problems:
+Identify recurring problems that indicate systemic gaps rather than one-off mistakes:
 - "Hard-coded colors appear in 15+ components, should use design tokens"
 - "Touch targets consistently too small (<44px) throughout mobile experience"
-- "Missing focus indicators on all custom interactive components"
 
 ### Positive Findings
 
-Note what's working well:
-- Good practices to maintain
-- Exemplary implementations to replicate elsewhere
+Note what's working well — good practices to maintain and replicate.
 
-### Recommendations by Priority
+## Recommended Actions
 
-Create actionable plan:
-1. **Immediate**: Critical blockers to fix first
-2. **Short-term**: High-severity issues (this sprint)
-3. **Medium-term**: Quality improvements (next sprint)
-4. **Long-term**: Nice-to-haves and optimizations
+List recommended commands in priority order (P0 first, then P1, then P2):
 
-### Suggested Commands for Fixes
+1. **[P?] `/command-name`** — Brief description (specific context from audit findings)
+2. **[P?] `/command-name`** — Brief description (specific context)
 
-Map issues to available commands. Prefer these: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive. You may also suggest other installed skills you're sure exist, but never invent commands.
+**Rules**: Only recommend commands from: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive. Map findings to the most appropriate command. End with `/polish` as the final step if any fixes were recommended.
 
-Examples:
-- "Use `/normalize` to align with design system (addresses N theming issues)"
-- "Use `/optimize` to improve performance (addresses N performance issues)"
-- "Use `/harden` to improve resilience (addresses N edge cases)"
+After presenting the summary, tell the user:
 
-**IMPORTANT**: Be thorough but actionable. Too many low-priority issues creates noise. Focus on what actually matters.
+> You can ask me to run these one at a time, all at once, or in any order you prefer.
+>
+> Re-run `/audit` after fixes to see your score improve.
+
+**IMPORTANT**: Be thorough but actionable. Too many P3 issues creates noise. Focus on what actually matters.
 
 **NEVER**:
 - Report issues without explaining impact (why does this matter?)
-- Mix severity levels inconsistently
-- Skip positive findings (celebrate what works)
 - Provide generic recommendations (be specific and actionable)
-- Forget to prioritize (everything can't be critical)
+- Skip positive findings (celebrate what works)
+- Forget to prioritize (everything can't be P0)
 - Report false positives without verification
 
-Remember: You're a quality auditor with exceptional attention to detail. Document systematically, prioritize ruthlessly, and provide clear paths to improvement. A good audit makes fixing easy.
\ No newline at end of file
+Remember: You're a technical quality auditor. Document systematically, prioritize ruthlessly, cite specific code locations, and provide clear paths to improvement.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/.gemini/skills/critique/SKILL.md b/.gemini/skills/critique/SKILL.md
index f964b3eee..12180ce73 100644
--- a/.gemini/skills/critique/SKILL.md
+++ b/.gemini/skills/critique/SKILL.md
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 name: critique
-description: Evaluate design effectiveness from a UX perspective. Assesses visual hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, and overall design quality with actionable feedback. Use when the user asks to review, critique, evaluate, audit, or give feedback on a design, UI, or component.
+description: Evaluate design from a UX perspective, assessing visual hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, cognitive load, and overall quality with quantitative scoring, persona-based testing, and actionable feedback. Use when the user asks to review, critique, evaluate, or give feedback on a design or component.
 ---
 
 ## MANDATORY PREPARATION
@@ -9,9 +9,9 @@ Invoke /frontend-design — it contains design principles, anti-patterns, and th
 
 ---
 
-Conduct a holistic design critique, evaluating whether the interface actually works—not just technically, but as a designed experience. Think like a design director giving feedback.
+Conduct a holistic design critique, evaluating whether the interface actually works — not just technically, but as a designed experience. Think like a design director giving feedback.
 
-## Design Critique
+## Phase 1: Design Critique
 
 Evaluate the interface across these dimensions:
 
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ Evaluate the interface across these dimensions:
 
 **This is the most important check.** Does this look like every other AI-generated interface from 2024-2025?
 
-Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill—they are the fingerprints of AI-generated work. Check for the AI color palette, gradient text, dark mode with glowing accents, glassmorphism, hero metric layouts, identical card grids, generic fonts, and all other tells.
+Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill — they are the fingerprints of AI-generated work. Check for the AI color palette, gradient text, dark mode with glowing accents, glassmorphism, hero metric layouts, identical card grids, generic fonts, and all other tells.
 
 **The test**: If you showed this to someone and said "AI made this," would they believe you immediately? If yes, that's the problem.
 
@@ -29,17 +29,23 @@ Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design sk
 - Do size, color, and position communicate importance correctly?
 - Is there visual competition between elements that should have different weights?
 
-### 3. Information Architecture
+### 3. Information Architecture & Cognitive Load
+> *Consult [cognitive-load](reference/cognitive-load.md) for the working memory rule and 8-item checklist*
 - Is the structure intuitive? Would a new user understand the organization?
 - Is related content grouped logically?
-- Are there too many choices at once? (cognitive overload)
+- Are there too many choices at once? Count visible options at each decision point — if >4, flag it
 - Is the navigation clear and predictable?
+- **Progressive disclosure**: Is complexity revealed only when needed, or dumped on the user upfront?
+- **Run the 8-item cognitive load checklist** from the reference. Report failure count: 0–1 = low (good), 2–3 = moderate, 4+ = critical.
 
-### 4. Emotional Resonance
+### 4. Emotional Journey
 - What emotion does this interface evoke? Is that intentional?
 - Does it match the brand personality?
-- Does it feel trustworthy, approachable, premium, playful—whatever it should feel?
+- Does it feel trustworthy, approachable, premium, playful — whatever it should feel?
 - Would the target user feel "this is for me"?
+- **Peak-end rule**: Is the most intense moment positive? Does the experience end well (confirmation, celebration, clear next step)?
+- **Emotional valleys**: Check for onboarding frustration, error cliffs, feature discovery gaps, or anxiety spikes at high-stakes moments (payment, delete, commit)
+- **Interventions at negative moments**: Are there design interventions where users are likely to feel frustrated or anxious? (progress indicators, reassurance copy, undo options, social proof)
 
 ### 5. Discoverability & Affordance
 - Are interactive elements obviously interactive?
@@ -63,7 +69,7 @@ Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design sk
 - Is color used to communicate, not just decorate?
 - Does the palette feel cohesive?
 - Are accent colors drawing attention to the right things?
-- Does it work for colorblind users? (not just technically—does meaning still come through?)
+- Does it work for colorblind users? (not just technically — does meaning still come through?)
 
 ### 9. States & Edge Cases
 - Empty states: Do they guide users toward action, or just say "nothing here"?
@@ -77,41 +83,117 @@ Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design sk
 - Are labels and buttons unambiguous?
 - Does error copy help users fix the problem?
 
-## Generate Critique Report
+## Phase 2: Present Findings
 
 Structure your feedback as a design director would:
 
+### Design Health Score
+> *Consult [heuristics-scoring](reference/heuristics-scoring.md)*
+
+Score each of Nielsen's 10 heuristics 0–4. Present as a table:
+
+| # | Heuristic | Score | Key Issue |
+|---|-----------|-------|-----------|
+| 1 | Visibility of System Status | ? | [specific finding or "—" if solid] |
+| 2 | Match System / Real World | ? | |
+| 3 | User Control and Freedom | ? | |
+| 4 | Consistency and Standards | ? | |
+| 5 | Error Prevention | ? | |
+| 6 | Recognition Rather Than Recall | ? | |
+| 7 | Flexibility and Efficiency | ? | |
+| 8 | Aesthetic and Minimalist Design | ? | |
+| 9 | Error Recovery | ? | |
+| 10 | Help and Documentation | ? | |
+| **Total** | | **??/40** | **[Rating band]** |
+
+Be honest with scores. A 4 means genuinely excellent. Most real interfaces score 20–32.
+
 ### Anti-Patterns Verdict
 **Start here.** Pass/fail: Does this look AI-generated? List specific tells from the skill's Anti-Patterns section. Be brutally honest.
 
 ### Overall Impression
-A brief gut reaction—what works, what doesn't, and the single biggest opportunity.
+A brief gut reaction — what works, what doesn't, and the single biggest opportunity.
 
 ### What's Working
-Highlight 2-3 things done well. Be specific about why they work.
+Highlight 2–3 things done well. Be specific about why they work.
 
 ### Priority Issues
-The 3-5 most impactful design problems, ordered by importance:
+The 3–5 most impactful design problems, ordered by importance.
 
-For each issue:
-- **What**: Name the problem clearly
+For each issue, tag with **P0–P3 severity** (consult [heuristics-scoring](reference/heuristics-scoring.md) for severity definitions):
+- **[P?] What**: Name the problem clearly
 - **Why it matters**: How this hurts users or undermines goals
 - **Fix**: What to do about it (be concrete)
-- **Command**: Which command to use (prefer: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive — or other installed skills you're sure exist)
+- **Suggested command**: Which command could address this (from: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive)
+
+### Persona Red Flags
+> *Consult [personas](reference/personas.md)*
+
+Auto-select 2–3 personas most relevant to this interface type (use the selection table in the reference). If `GEMINI.md` contains a `## Design Context` section from `teach-impeccable`, also generate 1–2 project-specific personas from the audience/brand info.
+
+For each selected persona, walk through the primary user action and list specific red flags found:
+
+**Alex (Power User)**: No keyboard shortcuts detected. Form requires 8 clicks for primary action. Forced modal onboarding. ⚠️ High abandonment risk.
+
+**Jordan (First-Timer)**: Icon-only nav in sidebar. Technical jargon in error messages ("404 Not Found"). No visible help. ⚠️ Will abandon at step 2.
+
+Be specific — name the exact elements and interactions that fail each persona. Don't write generic persona descriptions; write what broke for them.
 
 ### Minor Observations
 Quick notes on smaller issues worth addressing.
 
-### Questions to Consider
-Provocative questions that might unlock better solutions:
-- "What if the primary action were more prominent?"
-- "Does this need to feel this complex?"
-- "What would a confident version of this look like?"
-
 **Remember**:
-- Be direct—vague feedback wastes everyone's time
-- Be specific—"the submit button" not "some elements"
+- Be direct — vague feedback wastes everyone's time
+- Be specific — "the submit button" not "some elements"
 - Say what's wrong AND why it matters to users
 - Give concrete suggestions, not just "consider exploring..."
-- Prioritize ruthlessly—if everything is important, nothing is
-- Don't soften criticism—developers need honest feedback to ship great design
\ No newline at end of file
+- Prioritize ruthlessly — if everything is important, nothing is
+- Don't soften criticism — developers need honest feedback to ship great design
+
+## Phase 3: Ask the User
+
+**After presenting findings**, use targeted questions based on what was actually found. ask the user directly to clarify what you cannot infer. These answers will shape the action plan.
+
+Ask questions along these lines (adapt to the specific findings — do NOT ask generic questions):
+
+1. **Priority direction**: Based on the issues found, ask which category matters most to the user right now. For example: "I found problems with visual hierarchy, color usage, and information overload. Which area should we tackle first?" Offer the top 2–3 issue categories as options.
+
+2. **Design intent**: If the critique found a tonal mismatch, ask whether it was intentional. For example: "The interface feels clinical and corporate. Is that the intended tone, or should it feel warmer/bolder/more playful?" Offer 2–3 tonal directions as options based on what would fix the issues found.
+
+3. **Scope**: Ask how much the user wants to take on. For example: "I found N issues. Want to address everything, or focus on the top 3?" Offer scope options like "Top 3 only", "All issues", "Critical issues only".
+
+4. **Constraints** (optional — only ask if relevant): If the findings touch many areas, ask if anything is off-limits. For example: "Should any sections stay as-is?" This prevents the plan from touching things the user considers done.
+
+**Rules for questions**:
+- Every question must reference specific findings from Phase 2 — never ask generic "who is your audience?" questions
+- Keep it to 2–4 questions maximum — respect the user's time
+- Offer concrete options, not open-ended prompts
+- If findings are straightforward (e.g., only 1–2 clear issues), skip questions and go directly to Phase 4
+
+## Phase 4: Recommended Actions
+
+**After receiving the user's answers**, present a prioritized action summary reflecting the user's priorities and scope from Phase 3.
+
+### Action Summary
+
+List recommended commands in priority order, based on the user's answers:
+
+1. **`/command-name`** — Brief description of what to fix (specific context from critique findings)
+2. **`/command-name`** — Brief description (specific context)
+...
+
+**Rules for recommendations**:
+- Only recommend commands from: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive
+- Order by the user's stated priorities first, then by impact
+- Each item's description should carry enough context that the command knows what to focus on
+- Map each Priority Issue to the appropriate command
+- Skip commands that would address zero issues
+- If the user chose a limited scope, only include items within that scope
+- If the user marked areas as off-limits, exclude commands that would touch those areas
+- End with `/polish` as the final step if any fixes were recommended
+
+After presenting the summary, tell the user:
+
+> You can ask me to run these one at a time, all at once, or in any order you prefer.
+>
+> Re-run `/critique` after fixes to see your score improve.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/.gemini/skills/critique/reference/cognitive-load.md b/.gemini/skills/critique/reference/cognitive-load.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..313df166b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.gemini/skills/critique/reference/cognitive-load.md
@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+# Cognitive Load Assessment
+
+Cognitive load is the total mental effort required to use an interface. Overloaded users make mistakes, get frustrated, and leave. This reference helps identify and fix cognitive overload.
+
+---
+
+## Three Types of Cognitive Load
+
+### Intrinsic Load — The Task Itself
+Complexity inherent to what the user is trying to do. You can't eliminate this, but you can structure it.
+
+**Manage it by**:
+- Breaking complex tasks into discrete steps
+- Providing scaffolding (templates, defaults, examples)
+- Progressive disclosure — show what's needed now, hide the rest
+- Grouping related decisions together
+
+### Extraneous Load — Bad Design
+Mental effort caused by poor design choices. **Eliminate this ruthlessly** — it's pure waste.
+
+**Common sources**:
+- Confusing navigation that requires mental mapping
+- Unclear labels that force users to guess meaning
+- Visual clutter competing for attention
+- Inconsistent patterns that prevent learning
+- Unnecessary steps between user intent and result
+
+### Germane Load — Learning Effort
+Mental effort spent building understanding. This is *good* cognitive load — it leads to mastery.
+
+**Support it by**:
+- Progressive disclosure that reveals complexity gradually
+- Consistent patterns that reward learning
+- Feedback that confirms correct understanding
+- Onboarding that teaches through action, not walls of text
+
+---
+
+## Cognitive Load Checklist
+
+Evaluate the interface against these 8 items:
+
+- [ ] **Single focus**: Can the user complete their primary task without distraction from competing elements?
+- [ ] **Chunking**: Is information presented in digestible groups (≤4 items per group)?
+- [ ] **Grouping**: Are related items visually grouped together (proximity, borders, shared background)?
+- [ ] **Visual hierarchy**: Is it immediately clear what's most important on the screen?
+- [ ] **One thing at a time**: Can the user focus on a single decision before moving to the next?
+- [ ] **Minimal choices**: Are decisions simplified (≤4 visible options at any decision point)?
+- [ ] **Working memory**: Does the user need to remember information from a previous screen to act on the current one?
+- [ ] **Progressive disclosure**: Is complexity revealed only when the user needs it?
+
+**Scoring**: Count the failed items. 0–1 failures = low cognitive load (good). 2–3 = moderate (address soon). 4+ = high cognitive load (critical fix needed).
+
+---
+
+## The Working Memory Rule
+
+**Humans can hold ≤4 items in working memory at once** (Miller's Law revised by Cowan, 2001).
+
+At any decision point, count the number of distinct options, actions, or pieces of information a user must simultaneously consider:
+- **≤4 items**: Within working memory limits — manageable
+- **5–7 items**: Pushing the boundary — consider grouping or progressive disclosure
+- **8+ items**: Overloaded — users will skip, misclick, or abandon
+
+**Practical applications**:
+- Navigation menus: ≤5 top-level items (group the rest under clear categories)
+- Form sections: ≤4 fields visible per group before a visual break
+- Action buttons: 1 primary, 1–2 secondary, group the rest in a menu
+- Dashboard widgets: ≤4 key metrics visible without scrolling
+- Pricing tiers: ≤3 options (more causes analysis paralysis)
+
+---
+
+## Common Cognitive Load Violations
+
+### 1. The Wall of Options
+**Problem**: Presenting 10+ choices at once with no hierarchy.
+**Fix**: Group into categories, highlight recommended, use progressive disclosure.
+
+### 2. The Memory Bridge
+**Problem**: User must remember info from step 1 to complete step 3.
+**Fix**: Keep relevant context visible, or repeat it where it's needed.
+
+### 3. The Hidden Navigation
+**Problem**: User must build a mental map of where things are.
+**Fix**: Always show current location (breadcrumbs, active states, progress indicators).
+
+### 4. The Jargon Barrier
+**Problem**: Technical or domain language forces translation effort.
+**Fix**: Use plain language. If domain terms are unavoidable, define them inline.
+
+### 5. The Visual Noise Floor
+**Problem**: Every element has the same visual weight — nothing stands out.
+**Fix**: Establish clear hierarchy: one primary element, 2–3 secondary, everything else muted.
+
+### 6. The Inconsistent Pattern
+**Problem**: Similar actions work differently in different places.
+**Fix**: Standardize interaction patterns. Same type of action = same type of UI.
+
+### 7. The Multi-Task Demand
+**Problem**: Interface requires processing multiple simultaneous inputs (reading + deciding + navigating).
+**Fix**: Sequence the steps. Let the user do one thing at a time.
+
+### 8. The Context Switch
+**Problem**: User must jump between screens/tabs/modals to gather info for a single decision.
+**Fix**: Co-locate the information needed for each decision. Reduce back-and-forth.
diff --git a/.gemini/skills/critique/reference/heuristics-scoring.md b/.gemini/skills/critique/reference/heuristics-scoring.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..fd5b1b08b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.gemini/skills/critique/reference/heuristics-scoring.md
@@ -0,0 +1,234 @@
+# Heuristics Scoring Guide
+
+Score each of Nielsen's 10 Usability Heuristics on a 0–4 scale. Be honest — a 4 means genuinely excellent, not "good enough."
+
+## Nielsen's 10 Heuristics
+
+### 1. Visibility of System Status
+
+Keep users informed about what's happening through timely, appropriate feedback.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Loading indicators during async operations
+- Confirmation of user actions (save, submit, delete)
+- Progress indicators for multi-step processes
+- Current location in navigation (breadcrumbs, active states)
+- Form validation feedback (inline, not just on submit)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | No feedback — user is guessing what happened |
+| 1 | Rare feedback — most actions produce no visible response |
+| 2 | Partial — some states communicated, major gaps remain |
+| 3 | Good — most operations give clear feedback, minor gaps |
+| 4 | Excellent — every action confirms, progress is always visible |
+
+### 2. Match Between System and Real World
+
+Speak the user's language. Follow real-world conventions. Information appears in natural, logical order.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Familiar terminology (no unexplained jargon)
+- Logical information order matching user expectations
+- Recognizable icons and metaphors
+- Domain-appropriate language for the target audience
+- Natural reading flow (left-to-right, top-to-bottom priority)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Pure tech jargon, alien to users |
+| 1 | Mostly confusing — requires domain expertise to navigate |
+| 2 | Mixed — some plain language, some jargon leaks through |
+| 3 | Mostly natural — occasional term needs context |
+| 4 | Speaks the user's language fluently throughout |
+
+### 3. User Control and Freedom
+
+Users need a clear "emergency exit" from unwanted states without extended dialogue.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Undo/redo functionality
+- Cancel buttons on forms and modals
+- Clear navigation back to safety (home, previous)
+- Easy way to clear filters, search, selections
+- Escape from long or multi-step processes
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Users get trapped — no way out without refreshing |
+| 1 | Difficult exits — must find obscure paths to escape |
+| 2 | Some exits — main flows have escape, edge cases don't |
+| 3 | Good control — users can exit and undo most actions |
+| 4 | Full control — undo, cancel, back, and escape everywhere |
+
+### 4. Consistency and Standards
+
+Users shouldn't wonder whether different words, situations, or actions mean the same thing.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Consistent terminology throughout the interface
+- Same actions produce same results everywhere
+- Platform conventions followed (standard UI patterns)
+- Visual consistency (colors, typography, spacing, components)
+- Consistent interaction patterns (same gesture = same behavior)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Inconsistent everywhere — feels like different products stitched together |
+| 1 | Many inconsistencies — similar things look/behave differently |
+| 2 | Partially consistent — main flows match, details diverge |
+| 3 | Mostly consistent — occasional deviation, nothing confusing |
+| 4 | Fully consistent — cohesive system, predictable behavior |
+
+### 5. Error Prevention
+
+Better than good error messages is a design that prevents problems in the first place.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Confirmation before destructive actions (delete, overwrite)
+- Constraints preventing invalid input (date pickers, dropdowns)
+- Smart defaults that reduce errors
+- Clear labels that prevent misunderstanding
+- Autosave and draft recovery
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Errors easy to make — no guardrails anywhere |
+| 1 | Few safeguards — some inputs validated, most aren't |
+| 2 | Partial prevention — common errors caught, edge cases slip |
+| 3 | Good prevention — most error paths blocked proactively |
+| 4 | Excellent — errors nearly impossible through smart constraints |
+
+### 6. Recognition Rather Than Recall
+
+Minimize memory load. Make objects, actions, and options visible or easily retrievable.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Visible options (not buried in hidden menus)
+- Contextual help when needed (tooltips, inline hints)
+- Recent items and history
+- Autocomplete and suggestions
+- Labels on icons (not icon-only navigation)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Heavy memorization — users must remember paths and commands |
+| 1 | Mostly recall — many hidden features, few visible cues |
+| 2 | Some aids — main actions visible, secondary features hidden |
+| 3 | Good recognition — most things discoverable, few memory demands |
+| 4 | Everything discoverable — users never need to memorize |
+
+### 7. Flexibility and Efficiency of Use
+
+Accelerators — invisible to novices — speed up expert interaction.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Keyboard shortcuts for common actions
+- Customizable interface elements
+- Recent items and favorites
+- Bulk/batch actions
+- Power user features that don't complicate the basics
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | One rigid path — no shortcuts or alternatives |
+| 1 | Limited flexibility — few alternatives to the main path |
+| 2 | Some shortcuts — basic keyboard support, limited bulk actions |
+| 3 | Good accelerators — keyboard nav, some customization |
+| 4 | Highly flexible — multiple paths, power features, customizable |
+
+### 8. Aesthetic and Minimalist Design
+
+Interfaces should not contain irrelevant or rarely needed information. Every element should serve a purpose.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Only necessary information visible at each step
+- Clear visual hierarchy directing attention
+- Purposeful use of color and emphasis
+- No decorative clutter competing for attention
+- Focused, uncluttered layouts
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Overwhelming — everything competes for attention equally |
+| 1 | Cluttered — too much noise, hard to find what matters |
+| 2 | Some clutter — main content clear, periphery noisy |
+| 3 | Mostly clean — focused design, minor visual noise |
+| 4 | Perfectly minimal — every element earns its pixel |
+
+### 9. Help Users Recognize, Diagnose, and Recover from Errors
+
+Error messages should use plain language, precisely indicate the problem, and constructively suggest a solution.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Plain language error messages (no error codes for users)
+- Specific problem identification ("Email is missing @" not "Invalid input")
+- Actionable recovery suggestions
+- Errors displayed near the source of the problem
+- Non-blocking error handling (don't wipe the form)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Cryptic errors — codes, jargon, or no message at all |
+| 1 | Vague errors — "Something went wrong" with no guidance |
+| 2 | Clear but unhelpful — names the problem but not the fix |
+| 3 | Clear with suggestions — identifies problem and offers next steps |
+| 4 | Perfect recovery — pinpoints issue, suggests fix, preserves user work |
+
+### 10. Help and Documentation
+
+Even if the system is usable without docs, help should be easy to find, task-focused, and concise.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Searchable help or documentation
+- Contextual help (tooltips, inline hints, guided tours)
+- Task-focused organization (not feature-organized)
+- Concise, scannable content
+- Easy access without leaving current context
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | No help available anywhere |
+| 1 | Help exists but hard to find or irrelevant |
+| 2 | Basic help — FAQ or docs exist, not contextual |
+| 3 | Good documentation — searchable, mostly task-focused |
+| 4 | Excellent contextual help — right info at the right moment |
+
+---
+
+## Score Summary
+
+**Total possible**: 40 points (10 heuristics × 4 max)
+
+| Score Range | Rating | What It Means |
+|-------------|--------|---------------|
+| 36–40 | Excellent | Minor polish only — ship it |
+| 28–35 | Good | Address weak areas, solid foundation |
+| 20–27 | Acceptable | Significant improvements needed before users are happy |
+| 12–19 | Poor | Major UX overhaul required — core experience broken |
+| 0–11 | Critical | Redesign needed — unusable in current state |
+
+---
+
+## Issue Severity (P0–P3)
+
+Tag each individual issue found during scoring with a priority level:
+
+| Priority | Name | Description | Action |
+|----------|------|-------------|--------|
+| **P0** | Blocking | Prevents task completion entirely | Fix immediately — this is a showstopper |
+| **P1** | Major | Causes significant difficulty or confusion | Fix before release |
+| **P2** | Minor | Annoyance, but workaround exists | Fix in next pass |
+| **P3** | Polish | Nice-to-fix, no real user impact | Fix if time permits |
+
+**Tip**: If you're unsure between two levels, ask: "Would a user contact support about this?" If yes, it's at least P1.
diff --git a/.gemini/skills/critique/reference/personas.md b/.gemini/skills/critique/reference/personas.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..80b38a939
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.gemini/skills/critique/reference/personas.md
@@ -0,0 +1,178 @@
+# Persona-Based Design Testing
+
+Test the interface through the eyes of 5 distinct user archetypes. Each persona exposes different failure modes that a single "design director" perspective would miss.
+
+**How to use**: Select 2–3 personas most relevant to the interface being critiqued. Walk through the primary user action as each persona. Report specific red flags — not generic concerns.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Impatient Power User — "Alex"
+
+**Profile**: Expert with similar products. Expects efficiency, hates hand-holding. Will find shortcuts or leave.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Skips all onboarding and instructions
+- Looks for keyboard shortcuts immediately
+- Tries to bulk-select, batch-edit, and automate
+- Gets frustrated by required steps that feel unnecessary
+- Abandons if anything feels slow or patronizing
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Can Alex complete the core task in under 60 seconds?
+- Are there keyboard shortcuts for common actions?
+- Can onboarding be skipped entirely?
+- Do modals have keyboard dismiss (Esc)?
+- Is there a "power user" path (shortcuts, bulk actions)?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Forced tutorials or unskippable onboarding
+- No keyboard navigation for primary actions
+- Slow animations that can't be skipped
+- One-item-at-a-time workflows where batch would be natural
+- Redundant confirmation steps for low-risk actions
+
+---
+
+## 2. Confused First-Timer — "Jordan"
+
+**Profile**: Never used this type of product. Needs guidance at every step. Will abandon rather than figure it out.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Reads all instructions carefully
+- Hesitates before clicking anything unfamiliar
+- Looks for help or support constantly
+- Misunderstands jargon and abbreviations
+- Takes the most literal interpretation of any label
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Is the first action obviously clear within 5 seconds?
+- Are all icons labeled with text?
+- Is there contextual help at decision points?
+- Does terminology assume prior knowledge?
+- Is there a clear "back" or "undo" at every step?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Icon-only navigation with no labels
+- Technical jargon without explanation
+- No visible help option or guidance
+- Ambiguous next steps after completing an action
+- No confirmation that an action succeeded
+
+---
+
+## 3. Accessibility-Dependent User — "Sam"
+
+**Profile**: Uses screen reader (VoiceOver/NVDA), keyboard-only navigation. May have low vision, motor impairment, or cognitive differences.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Tabs through the interface linearly
+- Relies on ARIA labels and heading structure
+- Cannot see hover states or visual-only indicators
+- Needs adequate color contrast (4.5:1 minimum)
+- May use browser zoom up to 200%
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Can the entire primary flow be completed keyboard-only?
+- Are all interactive elements focusable with visible focus indicators?
+- Do images have meaningful alt text?
+- Is color contrast WCAG AA compliant (4.5:1 for text)?
+- Does the screen reader announce state changes (loading, success, errors)?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Click-only interactions with no keyboard alternative
+- Missing or invisible focus indicators
+- Meaning conveyed by color alone (red = error, green = success)
+- Unlabeled form fields or buttons
+- Time-limited actions without extension option
+- Custom components that break screen reader flow
+
+---
+
+## 4. Deliberate Stress Tester — "Riley"
+
+**Profile**: Methodical user who pushes interfaces beyond the happy path. Tests edge cases, tries unexpected inputs, and probes for gaps in the experience.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Tests edge cases intentionally (empty states, long strings, special characters)
+- Submits forms with unexpected data (emoji, RTL text, very long values)
+- Tries to break workflows by navigating backwards, refreshing mid-flow, or opening in multiple tabs
+- Looks for inconsistencies between what the UI promises and what actually happens
+- Documents problems methodically
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- What happens at the edges (0 items, 1000 items, very long text)?
+- Do error states recover gracefully or leave the UI in a broken state?
+- What happens on refresh mid-workflow? Is state preserved?
+- Are there features that appear to work but produce broken results?
+- How does the UI handle unexpected input (emoji, special chars, paste from Excel)?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Features that appear to work but silently fail or produce wrong results
+- Error handling that exposes technical details or leaves UI in a broken state
+- Empty states that show nothing useful ("No results" with no guidance)
+- Workflows that lose user data on refresh or navigation
+- Inconsistent behavior between similar interactions in different parts of the UI
+
+---
+
+## 5. Distracted Mobile User — "Casey"
+
+**Profile**: Using phone one-handed on the go. Frequently interrupted. Possibly on a slow connection.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Uses thumb only — prefers bottom-of-screen actions
+- Gets interrupted mid-flow and returns later
+- Switches between apps frequently
+- Has limited attention span and low patience
+- Types as little as possible, prefers taps and selections
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Are primary actions in the thumb zone (bottom half of screen)?
+- Is state preserved if the user leaves and returns?
+- Does it work on slow connections (3G)?
+- Can forms leverage autocomplete and smart defaults?
+- Are touch targets at least 44×44pt?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Important actions positioned at the top of the screen (unreachable by thumb)
+- No state persistence — progress lost on tab switch or interruption
+- Large text inputs required where selection would work
+- Heavy assets loading on every page (no lazy loading)
+- Tiny tap targets or targets too close together
+
+---
+
+## Selecting Personas
+
+Choose personas based on the interface type:
+
+| Interface Type | Primary Personas | Why |
+|---------------|-----------------|-----|
+| Landing page / marketing | Jordan, Riley, Casey | First impressions, trust, mobile |
+| Dashboard / admin | Alex, Sam | Power users, accessibility |
+| E-commerce / checkout | Casey, Riley, Jordan | Mobile, edge cases, clarity |
+| Onboarding flow | Jordan, Casey | Confusion, interruption |
+| Data-heavy / analytics | Alex, Sam | Efficiency, keyboard nav |
+| Form-heavy / wizard | Jordan, Sam, Casey | Clarity, accessibility, mobile |
+
+---
+
+## Project-Specific Personas
+
+If `GEMINI.md` contains a `## Design Context` section (generated by `teach-impeccable`), derive 1–2 additional personas from the audience and brand information:
+
+1. Read the target audience description
+2. Identify the primary user archetype not covered by the 5 predefined personas
+3. Create a persona following this template:
+
+```
+### [Role] — "[Name]"
+
+**Profile**: [2-3 key characteristics derived from Design Context]
+
+**Behaviors**: [3-4 specific behaviors based on the described audience]
+
+**Red Flags**: [3-4 things that would alienate this specific user type]
+```
+
+Only generate project-specific personas when real Design Context data is available. Don't invent audience details — use the 5 predefined personas when no context exists.
diff --git a/.kiro/skills/audit/SKILL.md b/.kiro/skills/audit/SKILL.md
index 6490cb9aa..6dc747d60 100644
--- a/.kiro/skills/audit/SKILL.md
+++ b/.kiro/skills/audit/SKILL.md
@@ -1,123 +1,145 @@
 ---
 name: audit
-description: Perform a comprehensive audit of interface quality across accessibility, performance, theming, and responsive design. Generates a prioritized report with severity ratings. Use when the user wants a design review, accessibility check, quality audit, or a full list of UI issues to fix.
+description: Run technical quality checks across accessibility, performance, theming, responsive design, and anti-patterns. Generates a scored report with P0-P3 severity ratings and actionable plan. Use when the user wants an accessibility check, performance audit, or technical quality review.
 ---
 
-Run systematic quality checks and generate a comprehensive audit report with prioritized issues and actionable recommendations. Don't fix issues - document them for other commands to address.
+## MANDATORY PREPARATION
 
-**First**: Invoke /frontend-design for design principles and anti-patterns.
+Invoke /frontend-design — it contains design principles, anti-patterns, and the **Context Gathering Protocol**. Follow the protocol before proceeding — if no design context exists yet, you MUST run /teach-impeccable first.
+
+---
+
+Run systematic **technical** quality checks and generate a comprehensive report. Don't fix issues — document them for other commands to address.
+
+This is a code-level audit, not a design critique. Check what's measurable and verifiable in the implementation.
 
 ## Diagnostic Scan
 
-Run comprehensive checks across multiple dimensions:
+Run comprehensive checks across 5 dimensions. Score each dimension 0-4 using the criteria below.
 
-1. **Accessibility (A11y)** - Check for:
-   - **Contrast issues**: Text contrast ratios < 4.5:1 (or 7:1 for AAA)
-   - **Missing ARIA**: Interactive elements without proper roles, labels, or states
-   - **Keyboard navigation**: Missing focus indicators, illogical tab order, keyboard traps
-   - **Semantic HTML**: Improper heading hierarchy, missing landmarks, divs instead of buttons
-   - **Alt text**: Missing or poor image descriptions
-   - **Form issues**: Inputs without labels, poor error messaging, missing required indicators
+### 1. Accessibility (A11y)
 
-2. **Performance** - Check for:
-   - **Layout thrashing**: Reading/writing layout properties in loops
-   - **Expensive animations**: Animating layout properties (width, height, top, left) instead of transform/opacity
-   - **Missing optimization**: Images without lazy loading, unoptimized assets, missing will-change
-   - **Bundle size**: Unnecessary imports, unused dependencies
-   - **Render performance**: Unnecessary re-renders, missing memoization
+**Check for**:
+- **Contrast issues**: Text contrast ratios < 4.5:1 (or 7:1 for AAA)
+- **Missing ARIA**: Interactive elements without proper roles, labels, or states
+- **Keyboard navigation**: Missing focus indicators, illogical tab order, keyboard traps
+- **Semantic HTML**: Improper heading hierarchy, missing landmarks, divs instead of buttons
+- **Alt text**: Missing or poor image descriptions
+- **Form issues**: Inputs without labels, poor error messaging, missing required indicators
 
-3. **Theming** - Check for:
-   - **Hard-coded colors**: Colors not using design tokens
-   - **Broken dark mode**: Missing dark mode variants, poor contrast in dark theme
-   - **Inconsistent tokens**: Using wrong tokens, mixing token types
-   - **Theme switching issues**: Values that don't update on theme change
+**Score 0-4**: 0=Inaccessible (fails WCAG A), 1=Major gaps (few ARIA labels, no keyboard nav), 2=Partial (some a11y effort, significant gaps), 3=Good (WCAG AA mostly met, minor gaps), 4=Excellent (WCAG AA fully met, approaches AAA)
 
-4. **Responsive Design** - Check for:
-   - **Fixed widths**: Hard-coded widths that break on mobile
-   - **Touch targets**: Interactive elements < 44x44px
-   - **Horizontal scroll**: Content overflow on narrow viewports
-   - **Text scaling**: Layouts that break when text size increases
-   - **Missing breakpoints**: No mobile/tablet variants
+### 2. Performance
 
-5. **Anti-Patterns (CRITICAL)** - Check against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill. Look for AI slop tells (AI color palette, gradient text, glassmorphism, hero metrics, card grids, generic fonts) and general design anti-patterns (gray on color, nested cards, bounce easing, redundant copy).
+**Check for**:
+- **Layout thrashing**: Reading/writing layout properties in loops
+- **Expensive animations**: Animating layout properties (width, height, top, left) instead of transform/opacity
+- **Missing optimization**: Images without lazy loading, unoptimized assets, missing will-change
+- **Bundle size**: Unnecessary imports, unused dependencies
+- **Render performance**: Unnecessary re-renders, missing memoization
 
-**CRITICAL**: This is an audit, not a fix. Document issues thoroughly with clear explanations of impact. Use other commands (normalize, optimize, harden, etc.) to fix issues after audit.
+**Score 0-4**: 0=Severe issues (layout thrash, unoptimized everything), 1=Major problems (no lazy loading, expensive animations), 2=Partial (some optimization, gaps remain), 3=Good (mostly optimized, minor improvements possible), 4=Excellent (fast, lean, well-optimized)
 
-## Generate Comprehensive Report
+### 3. Theming
 
-Create a detailed audit report with the following structure:
+**Check for**:
+- **Hard-coded colors**: Colors not using design tokens
+- **Broken dark mode**: Missing dark mode variants, poor contrast in dark theme
+- **Inconsistent tokens**: Using wrong tokens, mixing token types
+- **Theme switching issues**: Values that don't update on theme change
+
+**Score 0-4**: 0=No theming (hard-coded everything), 1=Minimal tokens (mostly hard-coded), 2=Partial (tokens exist but inconsistently used), 3=Good (tokens used, minor hard-coded values), 4=Excellent (full token system, dark mode works perfectly)
+
+### 4. Responsive Design
+
+**Check for**:
+- **Fixed widths**: Hard-coded widths that break on mobile
+- **Touch targets**: Interactive elements < 44x44px
+- **Horizontal scroll**: Content overflow on narrow viewports
+- **Text scaling**: Layouts that break when text size increases
+- **Missing breakpoints**: No mobile/tablet variants
+
+**Score 0-4**: 0=Desktop-only (breaks on mobile), 1=Major issues (some breakpoints, many failures), 2=Partial (works on mobile, rough edges), 3=Good (responsive, minor touch target or overflow issues), 4=Excellent (fluid, all viewports, proper touch targets)
+
+### 5. Anti-Patterns (CRITICAL)
+
+Check against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill. Look for AI slop tells (AI color palette, gradient text, glassmorphism, hero metrics, card grids, generic fonts) and general design anti-patterns (gray on color, nested cards, bounce easing, redundant copy).
+
+**Score 0-4**: 0=AI slop gallery (5+ tells), 1=Heavy AI aesthetic (3-4 tells), 2=Some tells (1-2 noticeable), 3=Mostly clean (subtle issues only), 4=No AI tells (distinctive, intentional design)
+
+## Generate Report
+
+### Audit Health Score
+
+| # | Dimension | Score | Key Finding |
+|---|-----------|-------|-------------|
+| 1 | Accessibility | ? | [most critical a11y issue or "--"] |
+| 2 | Performance | ? | |
+| 3 | Responsive Design | ? | |
+| 4 | Theming | ? | |
+| 5 | Anti-Patterns | ? | |
+| **Total** | | **??/20** | **[Rating band]** |
+
+**Rating bands**: 18-20 Excellent (minor polish), 14-17 Good (address weak dimensions), 10-13 Acceptable (significant work needed), 6-9 Poor (major overhaul), 0-5 Critical (fundamental issues)
 
 ### Anti-Patterns Verdict
-**Start here.** Pass/fail: Does this look AI-generated? List specific tells from the skill's Anti-Patterns section. Be brutally honest.
+**Start here.** Pass/fail: Does this look AI-generated? List specific tells. Be brutally honest.
 
 ### Executive Summary
-- Total issues found (count by severity)
-- Most critical issues (top 3-5)
-- Overall quality score (if applicable)
+- Audit Health Score: **??/20** ([rating band])
+- Total issues found (count by severity: P0/P1/P2/P3)
+- Top 3-5 critical issues
 - Recommended next steps
 
 ### Detailed Findings by Severity
 
+Tag every issue with **P0-P3 severity**:
+- **P0 Blocking**: Prevents task completion — fix immediately
+- **P1 Major**: Significant difficulty or WCAG AA violation — fix before release
+- **P2 Minor**: Annoyance, workaround exists — fix in next pass
+- **P3 Polish**: Nice-to-fix, no real user impact — fix if time permits
+
 For each issue, document:
-- **Location**: Where the issue occurs (component, file, line)
-- **Severity**: Critical / High / Medium / Low
-- **Category**: Accessibility / Performance / Theming / Responsive
-- **Description**: What the issue is
+- **[P?] Issue name**
+- **Location**: Component, file, line
+- **Category**: Accessibility / Performance / Theming / Responsive / Anti-Pattern
 - **Impact**: How it affects users
 - **WCAG/Standard**: Which standard it violates (if applicable)
 - **Recommendation**: How to fix it
-- **Suggested command**: Which command to use (prefer: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive — or other installed skills you're sure exist)
-
-#### Critical Issues
-[Issues that block core functionality or violate WCAG A]
-
-#### High-Severity Issues  
-[Significant usability/accessibility impact, WCAG AA violations]
-
-#### Medium-Severity Issues
-[Quality issues, WCAG AAA violations, performance concerns]
-
-#### Low-Severity Issues
-[Minor inconsistencies, optimization opportunities]
+- **Suggested command**: Which command to use (prefer: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive)
 
 ### Patterns & Systemic Issues
 
-Identify recurring problems:
+Identify recurring problems that indicate systemic gaps rather than one-off mistakes:
 - "Hard-coded colors appear in 15+ components, should use design tokens"
 - "Touch targets consistently too small (<44px) throughout mobile experience"
-- "Missing focus indicators on all custom interactive components"
 
 ### Positive Findings
 
-Note what's working well:
-- Good practices to maintain
-- Exemplary implementations to replicate elsewhere
+Note what's working well — good practices to maintain and replicate.
 
-### Recommendations by Priority
+## Recommended Actions
 
-Create actionable plan:
-1. **Immediate**: Critical blockers to fix first
-2. **Short-term**: High-severity issues (this sprint)
-3. **Medium-term**: Quality improvements (next sprint)
-4. **Long-term**: Nice-to-haves and optimizations
+List recommended commands in priority order (P0 first, then P1, then P2):
 
-### Suggested Commands for Fixes
+1. **[P?] `/command-name`** — Brief description (specific context from audit findings)
+2. **[P?] `/command-name`** — Brief description (specific context)
 
-Map issues to available commands. Prefer these: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive. You may also suggest other installed skills you're sure exist, but never invent commands.
+**Rules**: Only recommend commands from: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive. Map findings to the most appropriate command. End with `/polish` as the final step if any fixes were recommended.
 
-Examples:
-- "Use `/normalize` to align with design system (addresses N theming issues)"
-- "Use `/optimize` to improve performance (addresses N performance issues)"
-- "Use `/harden` to improve resilience (addresses N edge cases)"
+After presenting the summary, tell the user:
 
-**IMPORTANT**: Be thorough but actionable. Too many low-priority issues creates noise. Focus on what actually matters.
+> You can ask me to run these one at a time, all at once, or in any order you prefer.
+>
+> Re-run `/audit` after fixes to see your score improve.
+
+**IMPORTANT**: Be thorough but actionable. Too many P3 issues creates noise. Focus on what actually matters.
 
 **NEVER**:
 - Report issues without explaining impact (why does this matter?)
-- Mix severity levels inconsistently
-- Skip positive findings (celebrate what works)
 - Provide generic recommendations (be specific and actionable)
-- Forget to prioritize (everything can't be critical)
+- Skip positive findings (celebrate what works)
+- Forget to prioritize (everything can't be P0)
 - Report false positives without verification
 
-Remember: You're a quality auditor with exceptional attention to detail. Document systematically, prioritize ruthlessly, and provide clear paths to improvement. A good audit makes fixing easy.
\ No newline at end of file
+Remember: You're a technical quality auditor. Document systematically, prioritize ruthlessly, cite specific code locations, and provide clear paths to improvement.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/.kiro/skills/critique/SKILL.md b/.kiro/skills/critique/SKILL.md
index f964b3eee..5d9660aae 100644
--- a/.kiro/skills/critique/SKILL.md
+++ b/.kiro/skills/critique/SKILL.md
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 name: critique
-description: Evaluate design effectiveness from a UX perspective. Assesses visual hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, and overall design quality with actionable feedback. Use when the user asks to review, critique, evaluate, audit, or give feedback on a design, UI, or component.
+description: Evaluate design from a UX perspective, assessing visual hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, cognitive load, and overall quality with quantitative scoring, persona-based testing, and actionable feedback. Use when the user asks to review, critique, evaluate, or give feedback on a design or component.
 ---
 
 ## MANDATORY PREPARATION
@@ -9,9 +9,9 @@ Invoke /frontend-design — it contains design principles, anti-patterns, and th
 
 ---
 
-Conduct a holistic design critique, evaluating whether the interface actually works—not just technically, but as a designed experience. Think like a design director giving feedback.
+Conduct a holistic design critique, evaluating whether the interface actually works — not just technically, but as a designed experience. Think like a design director giving feedback.
 
-## Design Critique
+## Phase 1: Design Critique
 
 Evaluate the interface across these dimensions:
 
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ Evaluate the interface across these dimensions:
 
 **This is the most important check.** Does this look like every other AI-generated interface from 2024-2025?
 
-Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill—they are the fingerprints of AI-generated work. Check for the AI color palette, gradient text, dark mode with glowing accents, glassmorphism, hero metric layouts, identical card grids, generic fonts, and all other tells.
+Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill — they are the fingerprints of AI-generated work. Check for the AI color palette, gradient text, dark mode with glowing accents, glassmorphism, hero metric layouts, identical card grids, generic fonts, and all other tells.
 
 **The test**: If you showed this to someone and said "AI made this," would they believe you immediately? If yes, that's the problem.
 
@@ -29,17 +29,23 @@ Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design sk
 - Do size, color, and position communicate importance correctly?
 - Is there visual competition between elements that should have different weights?
 
-### 3. Information Architecture
+### 3. Information Architecture & Cognitive Load
+> *Consult [cognitive-load](reference/cognitive-load.md) for the working memory rule and 8-item checklist*
 - Is the structure intuitive? Would a new user understand the organization?
 - Is related content grouped logically?
-- Are there too many choices at once? (cognitive overload)
+- Are there too many choices at once? Count visible options at each decision point — if >4, flag it
 - Is the navigation clear and predictable?
+- **Progressive disclosure**: Is complexity revealed only when needed, or dumped on the user upfront?
+- **Run the 8-item cognitive load checklist** from the reference. Report failure count: 0–1 = low (good), 2–3 = moderate, 4+ = critical.
 
-### 4. Emotional Resonance
+### 4. Emotional Journey
 - What emotion does this interface evoke? Is that intentional?
 - Does it match the brand personality?
-- Does it feel trustworthy, approachable, premium, playful—whatever it should feel?
+- Does it feel trustworthy, approachable, premium, playful — whatever it should feel?
 - Would the target user feel "this is for me"?
+- **Peak-end rule**: Is the most intense moment positive? Does the experience end well (confirmation, celebration, clear next step)?
+- **Emotional valleys**: Check for onboarding frustration, error cliffs, feature discovery gaps, or anxiety spikes at high-stakes moments (payment, delete, commit)
+- **Interventions at negative moments**: Are there design interventions where users are likely to feel frustrated or anxious? (progress indicators, reassurance copy, undo options, social proof)
 
 ### 5. Discoverability & Affordance
 - Are interactive elements obviously interactive?
@@ -63,7 +69,7 @@ Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design sk
 - Is color used to communicate, not just decorate?
 - Does the palette feel cohesive?
 - Are accent colors drawing attention to the right things?
-- Does it work for colorblind users? (not just technically—does meaning still come through?)
+- Does it work for colorblind users? (not just technically — does meaning still come through?)
 
 ### 9. States & Edge Cases
 - Empty states: Do they guide users toward action, or just say "nothing here"?
@@ -77,41 +83,117 @@ Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design sk
 - Are labels and buttons unambiguous?
 - Does error copy help users fix the problem?
 
-## Generate Critique Report
+## Phase 2: Present Findings
 
 Structure your feedback as a design director would:
 
+### Design Health Score
+> *Consult [heuristics-scoring](reference/heuristics-scoring.md)*
+
+Score each of Nielsen's 10 heuristics 0–4. Present as a table:
+
+| # | Heuristic | Score | Key Issue |
+|---|-----------|-------|-----------|
+| 1 | Visibility of System Status | ? | [specific finding or "—" if solid] |
+| 2 | Match System / Real World | ? | |
+| 3 | User Control and Freedom | ? | |
+| 4 | Consistency and Standards | ? | |
+| 5 | Error Prevention | ? | |
+| 6 | Recognition Rather Than Recall | ? | |
+| 7 | Flexibility and Efficiency | ? | |
+| 8 | Aesthetic and Minimalist Design | ? | |
+| 9 | Error Recovery | ? | |
+| 10 | Help and Documentation | ? | |
+| **Total** | | **??/40** | **[Rating band]** |
+
+Be honest with scores. A 4 means genuinely excellent. Most real interfaces score 20–32.
+
 ### Anti-Patterns Verdict
 **Start here.** Pass/fail: Does this look AI-generated? List specific tells from the skill's Anti-Patterns section. Be brutally honest.
 
 ### Overall Impression
-A brief gut reaction—what works, what doesn't, and the single biggest opportunity.
+A brief gut reaction — what works, what doesn't, and the single biggest opportunity.
 
 ### What's Working
-Highlight 2-3 things done well. Be specific about why they work.
+Highlight 2–3 things done well. Be specific about why they work.
 
 ### Priority Issues
-The 3-5 most impactful design problems, ordered by importance:
+The 3–5 most impactful design problems, ordered by importance.
 
-For each issue:
-- **What**: Name the problem clearly
+For each issue, tag with **P0–P3 severity** (consult [heuristics-scoring](reference/heuristics-scoring.md) for severity definitions):
+- **[P?] What**: Name the problem clearly
 - **Why it matters**: How this hurts users or undermines goals
 - **Fix**: What to do about it (be concrete)
-- **Command**: Which command to use (prefer: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive — or other installed skills you're sure exist)
+- **Suggested command**: Which command could address this (from: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive)
+
+### Persona Red Flags
+> *Consult [personas](reference/personas.md)*
+
+Auto-select 2–3 personas most relevant to this interface type (use the selection table in the reference). If `.kiro/settings.json` contains a `## Design Context` section from `teach-impeccable`, also generate 1–2 project-specific personas from the audience/brand info.
+
+For each selected persona, walk through the primary user action and list specific red flags found:
+
+**Alex (Power User)**: No keyboard shortcuts detected. Form requires 8 clicks for primary action. Forced modal onboarding. ⚠️ High abandonment risk.
+
+**Jordan (First-Timer)**: Icon-only nav in sidebar. Technical jargon in error messages ("404 Not Found"). No visible help. ⚠️ Will abandon at step 2.
+
+Be specific — name the exact elements and interactions that fail each persona. Don't write generic persona descriptions; write what broke for them.
 
 ### Minor Observations
 Quick notes on smaller issues worth addressing.
 
-### Questions to Consider
-Provocative questions that might unlock better solutions:
-- "What if the primary action were more prominent?"
-- "Does this need to feel this complex?"
-- "What would a confident version of this look like?"
-
 **Remember**:
-- Be direct—vague feedback wastes everyone's time
-- Be specific—"the submit button" not "some elements"
+- Be direct — vague feedback wastes everyone's time
+- Be specific — "the submit button" not "some elements"
 - Say what's wrong AND why it matters to users
 - Give concrete suggestions, not just "consider exploring..."
-- Prioritize ruthlessly—if everything is important, nothing is
-- Don't soften criticism—developers need honest feedback to ship great design
\ No newline at end of file
+- Prioritize ruthlessly — if everything is important, nothing is
+- Don't soften criticism — developers need honest feedback to ship great design
+
+## Phase 3: Ask the User
+
+**After presenting findings**, use targeted questions based on what was actually found. ask the user directly to clarify what you cannot infer. These answers will shape the action plan.
+
+Ask questions along these lines (adapt to the specific findings — do NOT ask generic questions):
+
+1. **Priority direction**: Based on the issues found, ask which category matters most to the user right now. For example: "I found problems with visual hierarchy, color usage, and information overload. Which area should we tackle first?" Offer the top 2–3 issue categories as options.
+
+2. **Design intent**: If the critique found a tonal mismatch, ask whether it was intentional. For example: "The interface feels clinical and corporate. Is that the intended tone, or should it feel warmer/bolder/more playful?" Offer 2–3 tonal directions as options based on what would fix the issues found.
+
+3. **Scope**: Ask how much the user wants to take on. For example: "I found N issues. Want to address everything, or focus on the top 3?" Offer scope options like "Top 3 only", "All issues", "Critical issues only".
+
+4. **Constraints** (optional — only ask if relevant): If the findings touch many areas, ask if anything is off-limits. For example: "Should any sections stay as-is?" This prevents the plan from touching things the user considers done.
+
+**Rules for questions**:
+- Every question must reference specific findings from Phase 2 — never ask generic "who is your audience?" questions
+- Keep it to 2–4 questions maximum — respect the user's time
+- Offer concrete options, not open-ended prompts
+- If findings are straightforward (e.g., only 1–2 clear issues), skip questions and go directly to Phase 4
+
+## Phase 4: Recommended Actions
+
+**After receiving the user's answers**, present a prioritized action summary reflecting the user's priorities and scope from Phase 3.
+
+### Action Summary
+
+List recommended commands in priority order, based on the user's answers:
+
+1. **`/command-name`** — Brief description of what to fix (specific context from critique findings)
+2. **`/command-name`** — Brief description (specific context)
+...
+
+**Rules for recommendations**:
+- Only recommend commands from: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive
+- Order by the user's stated priorities first, then by impact
+- Each item's description should carry enough context that the command knows what to focus on
+- Map each Priority Issue to the appropriate command
+- Skip commands that would address zero issues
+- If the user chose a limited scope, only include items within that scope
+- If the user marked areas as off-limits, exclude commands that would touch those areas
+- End with `/polish` as the final step if any fixes were recommended
+
+After presenting the summary, tell the user:
+
+> You can ask me to run these one at a time, all at once, or in any order you prefer.
+>
+> Re-run `/critique` after fixes to see your score improve.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/.kiro/skills/critique/reference/cognitive-load.md b/.kiro/skills/critique/reference/cognitive-load.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..313df166b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.kiro/skills/critique/reference/cognitive-load.md
@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+# Cognitive Load Assessment
+
+Cognitive load is the total mental effort required to use an interface. Overloaded users make mistakes, get frustrated, and leave. This reference helps identify and fix cognitive overload.
+
+---
+
+## Three Types of Cognitive Load
+
+### Intrinsic Load — The Task Itself
+Complexity inherent to what the user is trying to do. You can't eliminate this, but you can structure it.
+
+**Manage it by**:
+- Breaking complex tasks into discrete steps
+- Providing scaffolding (templates, defaults, examples)
+- Progressive disclosure — show what's needed now, hide the rest
+- Grouping related decisions together
+
+### Extraneous Load — Bad Design
+Mental effort caused by poor design choices. **Eliminate this ruthlessly** — it's pure waste.
+
+**Common sources**:
+- Confusing navigation that requires mental mapping
+- Unclear labels that force users to guess meaning
+- Visual clutter competing for attention
+- Inconsistent patterns that prevent learning
+- Unnecessary steps between user intent and result
+
+### Germane Load — Learning Effort
+Mental effort spent building understanding. This is *good* cognitive load — it leads to mastery.
+
+**Support it by**:
+- Progressive disclosure that reveals complexity gradually
+- Consistent patterns that reward learning
+- Feedback that confirms correct understanding
+- Onboarding that teaches through action, not walls of text
+
+---
+
+## Cognitive Load Checklist
+
+Evaluate the interface against these 8 items:
+
+- [ ] **Single focus**: Can the user complete their primary task without distraction from competing elements?
+- [ ] **Chunking**: Is information presented in digestible groups (≤4 items per group)?
+- [ ] **Grouping**: Are related items visually grouped together (proximity, borders, shared background)?
+- [ ] **Visual hierarchy**: Is it immediately clear what's most important on the screen?
+- [ ] **One thing at a time**: Can the user focus on a single decision before moving to the next?
+- [ ] **Minimal choices**: Are decisions simplified (≤4 visible options at any decision point)?
+- [ ] **Working memory**: Does the user need to remember information from a previous screen to act on the current one?
+- [ ] **Progressive disclosure**: Is complexity revealed only when the user needs it?
+
+**Scoring**: Count the failed items. 0–1 failures = low cognitive load (good). 2–3 = moderate (address soon). 4+ = high cognitive load (critical fix needed).
+
+---
+
+## The Working Memory Rule
+
+**Humans can hold ≤4 items in working memory at once** (Miller's Law revised by Cowan, 2001).
+
+At any decision point, count the number of distinct options, actions, or pieces of information a user must simultaneously consider:
+- **≤4 items**: Within working memory limits — manageable
+- **5–7 items**: Pushing the boundary — consider grouping or progressive disclosure
+- **8+ items**: Overloaded — users will skip, misclick, or abandon
+
+**Practical applications**:
+- Navigation menus: ≤5 top-level items (group the rest under clear categories)
+- Form sections: ≤4 fields visible per group before a visual break
+- Action buttons: 1 primary, 1–2 secondary, group the rest in a menu
+- Dashboard widgets: ≤4 key metrics visible without scrolling
+- Pricing tiers: ≤3 options (more causes analysis paralysis)
+
+---
+
+## Common Cognitive Load Violations
+
+### 1. The Wall of Options
+**Problem**: Presenting 10+ choices at once with no hierarchy.
+**Fix**: Group into categories, highlight recommended, use progressive disclosure.
+
+### 2. The Memory Bridge
+**Problem**: User must remember info from step 1 to complete step 3.
+**Fix**: Keep relevant context visible, or repeat it where it's needed.
+
+### 3. The Hidden Navigation
+**Problem**: User must build a mental map of where things are.
+**Fix**: Always show current location (breadcrumbs, active states, progress indicators).
+
+### 4. The Jargon Barrier
+**Problem**: Technical or domain language forces translation effort.
+**Fix**: Use plain language. If domain terms are unavoidable, define them inline.
+
+### 5. The Visual Noise Floor
+**Problem**: Every element has the same visual weight — nothing stands out.
+**Fix**: Establish clear hierarchy: one primary element, 2–3 secondary, everything else muted.
+
+### 6. The Inconsistent Pattern
+**Problem**: Similar actions work differently in different places.
+**Fix**: Standardize interaction patterns. Same type of action = same type of UI.
+
+### 7. The Multi-Task Demand
+**Problem**: Interface requires processing multiple simultaneous inputs (reading + deciding + navigating).
+**Fix**: Sequence the steps. Let the user do one thing at a time.
+
+### 8. The Context Switch
+**Problem**: User must jump between screens/tabs/modals to gather info for a single decision.
+**Fix**: Co-locate the information needed for each decision. Reduce back-and-forth.
diff --git a/.kiro/skills/critique/reference/heuristics-scoring.md b/.kiro/skills/critique/reference/heuristics-scoring.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..fd5b1b08b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.kiro/skills/critique/reference/heuristics-scoring.md
@@ -0,0 +1,234 @@
+# Heuristics Scoring Guide
+
+Score each of Nielsen's 10 Usability Heuristics on a 0–4 scale. Be honest — a 4 means genuinely excellent, not "good enough."
+
+## Nielsen's 10 Heuristics
+
+### 1. Visibility of System Status
+
+Keep users informed about what's happening through timely, appropriate feedback.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Loading indicators during async operations
+- Confirmation of user actions (save, submit, delete)
+- Progress indicators for multi-step processes
+- Current location in navigation (breadcrumbs, active states)
+- Form validation feedback (inline, not just on submit)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | No feedback — user is guessing what happened |
+| 1 | Rare feedback — most actions produce no visible response |
+| 2 | Partial — some states communicated, major gaps remain |
+| 3 | Good — most operations give clear feedback, minor gaps |
+| 4 | Excellent — every action confirms, progress is always visible |
+
+### 2. Match Between System and Real World
+
+Speak the user's language. Follow real-world conventions. Information appears in natural, logical order.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Familiar terminology (no unexplained jargon)
+- Logical information order matching user expectations
+- Recognizable icons and metaphors
+- Domain-appropriate language for the target audience
+- Natural reading flow (left-to-right, top-to-bottom priority)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Pure tech jargon, alien to users |
+| 1 | Mostly confusing — requires domain expertise to navigate |
+| 2 | Mixed — some plain language, some jargon leaks through |
+| 3 | Mostly natural — occasional term needs context |
+| 4 | Speaks the user's language fluently throughout |
+
+### 3. User Control and Freedom
+
+Users need a clear "emergency exit" from unwanted states without extended dialogue.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Undo/redo functionality
+- Cancel buttons on forms and modals
+- Clear navigation back to safety (home, previous)
+- Easy way to clear filters, search, selections
+- Escape from long or multi-step processes
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Users get trapped — no way out without refreshing |
+| 1 | Difficult exits — must find obscure paths to escape |
+| 2 | Some exits — main flows have escape, edge cases don't |
+| 3 | Good control — users can exit and undo most actions |
+| 4 | Full control — undo, cancel, back, and escape everywhere |
+
+### 4. Consistency and Standards
+
+Users shouldn't wonder whether different words, situations, or actions mean the same thing.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Consistent terminology throughout the interface
+- Same actions produce same results everywhere
+- Platform conventions followed (standard UI patterns)
+- Visual consistency (colors, typography, spacing, components)
+- Consistent interaction patterns (same gesture = same behavior)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Inconsistent everywhere — feels like different products stitched together |
+| 1 | Many inconsistencies — similar things look/behave differently |
+| 2 | Partially consistent — main flows match, details diverge |
+| 3 | Mostly consistent — occasional deviation, nothing confusing |
+| 4 | Fully consistent — cohesive system, predictable behavior |
+
+### 5. Error Prevention
+
+Better than good error messages is a design that prevents problems in the first place.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Confirmation before destructive actions (delete, overwrite)
+- Constraints preventing invalid input (date pickers, dropdowns)
+- Smart defaults that reduce errors
+- Clear labels that prevent misunderstanding
+- Autosave and draft recovery
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Errors easy to make — no guardrails anywhere |
+| 1 | Few safeguards — some inputs validated, most aren't |
+| 2 | Partial prevention — common errors caught, edge cases slip |
+| 3 | Good prevention — most error paths blocked proactively |
+| 4 | Excellent — errors nearly impossible through smart constraints |
+
+### 6. Recognition Rather Than Recall
+
+Minimize memory load. Make objects, actions, and options visible or easily retrievable.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Visible options (not buried in hidden menus)
+- Contextual help when needed (tooltips, inline hints)
+- Recent items and history
+- Autocomplete and suggestions
+- Labels on icons (not icon-only navigation)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Heavy memorization — users must remember paths and commands |
+| 1 | Mostly recall — many hidden features, few visible cues |
+| 2 | Some aids — main actions visible, secondary features hidden |
+| 3 | Good recognition — most things discoverable, few memory demands |
+| 4 | Everything discoverable — users never need to memorize |
+
+### 7. Flexibility and Efficiency of Use
+
+Accelerators — invisible to novices — speed up expert interaction.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Keyboard shortcuts for common actions
+- Customizable interface elements
+- Recent items and favorites
+- Bulk/batch actions
+- Power user features that don't complicate the basics
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | One rigid path — no shortcuts or alternatives |
+| 1 | Limited flexibility — few alternatives to the main path |
+| 2 | Some shortcuts — basic keyboard support, limited bulk actions |
+| 3 | Good accelerators — keyboard nav, some customization |
+| 4 | Highly flexible — multiple paths, power features, customizable |
+
+### 8. Aesthetic and Minimalist Design
+
+Interfaces should not contain irrelevant or rarely needed information. Every element should serve a purpose.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Only necessary information visible at each step
+- Clear visual hierarchy directing attention
+- Purposeful use of color and emphasis
+- No decorative clutter competing for attention
+- Focused, uncluttered layouts
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Overwhelming — everything competes for attention equally |
+| 1 | Cluttered — too much noise, hard to find what matters |
+| 2 | Some clutter — main content clear, periphery noisy |
+| 3 | Mostly clean — focused design, minor visual noise |
+| 4 | Perfectly minimal — every element earns its pixel |
+
+### 9. Help Users Recognize, Diagnose, and Recover from Errors
+
+Error messages should use plain language, precisely indicate the problem, and constructively suggest a solution.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Plain language error messages (no error codes for users)
+- Specific problem identification ("Email is missing @" not "Invalid input")
+- Actionable recovery suggestions
+- Errors displayed near the source of the problem
+- Non-blocking error handling (don't wipe the form)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Cryptic errors — codes, jargon, or no message at all |
+| 1 | Vague errors — "Something went wrong" with no guidance |
+| 2 | Clear but unhelpful — names the problem but not the fix |
+| 3 | Clear with suggestions — identifies problem and offers next steps |
+| 4 | Perfect recovery — pinpoints issue, suggests fix, preserves user work |
+
+### 10. Help and Documentation
+
+Even if the system is usable without docs, help should be easy to find, task-focused, and concise.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Searchable help or documentation
+- Contextual help (tooltips, inline hints, guided tours)
+- Task-focused organization (not feature-organized)
+- Concise, scannable content
+- Easy access without leaving current context
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | No help available anywhere |
+| 1 | Help exists but hard to find or irrelevant |
+| 2 | Basic help — FAQ or docs exist, not contextual |
+| 3 | Good documentation — searchable, mostly task-focused |
+| 4 | Excellent contextual help — right info at the right moment |
+
+---
+
+## Score Summary
+
+**Total possible**: 40 points (10 heuristics × 4 max)
+
+| Score Range | Rating | What It Means |
+|-------------|--------|---------------|
+| 36–40 | Excellent | Minor polish only — ship it |
+| 28–35 | Good | Address weak areas, solid foundation |
+| 20–27 | Acceptable | Significant improvements needed before users are happy |
+| 12–19 | Poor | Major UX overhaul required — core experience broken |
+| 0–11 | Critical | Redesign needed — unusable in current state |
+
+---
+
+## Issue Severity (P0–P3)
+
+Tag each individual issue found during scoring with a priority level:
+
+| Priority | Name | Description | Action |
+|----------|------|-------------|--------|
+| **P0** | Blocking | Prevents task completion entirely | Fix immediately — this is a showstopper |
+| **P1** | Major | Causes significant difficulty or confusion | Fix before release |
+| **P2** | Minor | Annoyance, but workaround exists | Fix in next pass |
+| **P3** | Polish | Nice-to-fix, no real user impact | Fix if time permits |
+
+**Tip**: If you're unsure between two levels, ask: "Would a user contact support about this?" If yes, it's at least P1.
diff --git a/.kiro/skills/critique/reference/personas.md b/.kiro/skills/critique/reference/personas.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..615d30d74
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.kiro/skills/critique/reference/personas.md
@@ -0,0 +1,178 @@
+# Persona-Based Design Testing
+
+Test the interface through the eyes of 5 distinct user archetypes. Each persona exposes different failure modes that a single "design director" perspective would miss.
+
+**How to use**: Select 2–3 personas most relevant to the interface being critiqued. Walk through the primary user action as each persona. Report specific red flags — not generic concerns.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Impatient Power User — "Alex"
+
+**Profile**: Expert with similar products. Expects efficiency, hates hand-holding. Will find shortcuts or leave.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Skips all onboarding and instructions
+- Looks for keyboard shortcuts immediately
+- Tries to bulk-select, batch-edit, and automate
+- Gets frustrated by required steps that feel unnecessary
+- Abandons if anything feels slow or patronizing
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Can Alex complete the core task in under 60 seconds?
+- Are there keyboard shortcuts for common actions?
+- Can onboarding be skipped entirely?
+- Do modals have keyboard dismiss (Esc)?
+- Is there a "power user" path (shortcuts, bulk actions)?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Forced tutorials or unskippable onboarding
+- No keyboard navigation for primary actions
+- Slow animations that can't be skipped
+- One-item-at-a-time workflows where batch would be natural
+- Redundant confirmation steps for low-risk actions
+
+---
+
+## 2. Confused First-Timer — "Jordan"
+
+**Profile**: Never used this type of product. Needs guidance at every step. Will abandon rather than figure it out.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Reads all instructions carefully
+- Hesitates before clicking anything unfamiliar
+- Looks for help or support constantly
+- Misunderstands jargon and abbreviations
+- Takes the most literal interpretation of any label
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Is the first action obviously clear within 5 seconds?
+- Are all icons labeled with text?
+- Is there contextual help at decision points?
+- Does terminology assume prior knowledge?
+- Is there a clear "back" or "undo" at every step?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Icon-only navigation with no labels
+- Technical jargon without explanation
+- No visible help option or guidance
+- Ambiguous next steps after completing an action
+- No confirmation that an action succeeded
+
+---
+
+## 3. Accessibility-Dependent User — "Sam"
+
+**Profile**: Uses screen reader (VoiceOver/NVDA), keyboard-only navigation. May have low vision, motor impairment, or cognitive differences.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Tabs through the interface linearly
+- Relies on ARIA labels and heading structure
+- Cannot see hover states or visual-only indicators
+- Needs adequate color contrast (4.5:1 minimum)
+- May use browser zoom up to 200%
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Can the entire primary flow be completed keyboard-only?
+- Are all interactive elements focusable with visible focus indicators?
+- Do images have meaningful alt text?
+- Is color contrast WCAG AA compliant (4.5:1 for text)?
+- Does the screen reader announce state changes (loading, success, errors)?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Click-only interactions with no keyboard alternative
+- Missing or invisible focus indicators
+- Meaning conveyed by color alone (red = error, green = success)
+- Unlabeled form fields or buttons
+- Time-limited actions without extension option
+- Custom components that break screen reader flow
+
+---
+
+## 4. Deliberate Stress Tester — "Riley"
+
+**Profile**: Methodical user who pushes interfaces beyond the happy path. Tests edge cases, tries unexpected inputs, and probes for gaps in the experience.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Tests edge cases intentionally (empty states, long strings, special characters)
+- Submits forms with unexpected data (emoji, RTL text, very long values)
+- Tries to break workflows by navigating backwards, refreshing mid-flow, or opening in multiple tabs
+- Looks for inconsistencies between what the UI promises and what actually happens
+- Documents problems methodically
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- What happens at the edges (0 items, 1000 items, very long text)?
+- Do error states recover gracefully or leave the UI in a broken state?
+- What happens on refresh mid-workflow? Is state preserved?
+- Are there features that appear to work but produce broken results?
+- How does the UI handle unexpected input (emoji, special chars, paste from Excel)?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Features that appear to work but silently fail or produce wrong results
+- Error handling that exposes technical details or leaves UI in a broken state
+- Empty states that show nothing useful ("No results" with no guidance)
+- Workflows that lose user data on refresh or navigation
+- Inconsistent behavior between similar interactions in different parts of the UI
+
+---
+
+## 5. Distracted Mobile User — "Casey"
+
+**Profile**: Using phone one-handed on the go. Frequently interrupted. Possibly on a slow connection.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Uses thumb only — prefers bottom-of-screen actions
+- Gets interrupted mid-flow and returns later
+- Switches between apps frequently
+- Has limited attention span and low patience
+- Types as little as possible, prefers taps and selections
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Are primary actions in the thumb zone (bottom half of screen)?
+- Is state preserved if the user leaves and returns?
+- Does it work on slow connections (3G)?
+- Can forms leverage autocomplete and smart defaults?
+- Are touch targets at least 44×44pt?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Important actions positioned at the top of the screen (unreachable by thumb)
+- No state persistence — progress lost on tab switch or interruption
+- Large text inputs required where selection would work
+- Heavy assets loading on every page (no lazy loading)
+- Tiny tap targets or targets too close together
+
+---
+
+## Selecting Personas
+
+Choose personas based on the interface type:
+
+| Interface Type | Primary Personas | Why |
+|---------------|-----------------|-----|
+| Landing page / marketing | Jordan, Riley, Casey | First impressions, trust, mobile |
+| Dashboard / admin | Alex, Sam | Power users, accessibility |
+| E-commerce / checkout | Casey, Riley, Jordan | Mobile, edge cases, clarity |
+| Onboarding flow | Jordan, Casey | Confusion, interruption |
+| Data-heavy / analytics | Alex, Sam | Efficiency, keyboard nav |
+| Form-heavy / wizard | Jordan, Sam, Casey | Clarity, accessibility, mobile |
+
+---
+
+## Project-Specific Personas
+
+If `.kiro/settings.json` contains a `## Design Context` section (generated by `teach-impeccable`), derive 1–2 additional personas from the audience and brand information:
+
+1. Read the target audience description
+2. Identify the primary user archetype not covered by the 5 predefined personas
+3. Create a persona following this template:
+
+```
+### [Role] — "[Name]"
+
+**Profile**: [2-3 key characteristics derived from Design Context]
+
+**Behaviors**: [3-4 specific behaviors based on the described audience]
+
+**Red Flags**: [3-4 things that would alienate this specific user type]
+```
+
+Only generate project-specific personas when real Design Context data is available. Don't invent audience details — use the 5 predefined personas when no context exists.
diff --git a/.opencode/skills/audit/SKILL.md b/.opencode/skills/audit/SKILL.md
index b0cee9eaa..1debe043e 100644
--- a/.opencode/skills/audit/SKILL.md
+++ b/.opencode/skills/audit/SKILL.md
@@ -1,125 +1,147 @@
 ---
 name: audit
-description: Perform a comprehensive audit of interface quality across accessibility, performance, theming, and responsive design. Generates a prioritized report with severity ratings. Use when the user wants a design review, accessibility check, quality audit, or a full list of UI issues to fix.
+description: Run technical quality checks across accessibility, performance, theming, responsive design, and anti-patterns. Generates a scored report with P0-P3 severity ratings and actionable plan. Use when the user wants an accessibility check, performance audit, or technical quality review.
 user-invocable: true
 argument-hint: "[area (feature, page, component...)]"
 ---
 
-Run systematic quality checks and generate a comprehensive audit report with prioritized issues and actionable recommendations. Don't fix issues - document them for other commands to address.
+## MANDATORY PREPARATION
 
-**First**: Invoke /frontend-design for design principles and anti-patterns.
+Invoke /frontend-design — it contains design principles, anti-patterns, and the **Context Gathering Protocol**. Follow the protocol before proceeding — if no design context exists yet, you MUST run /teach-impeccable first.
+
+---
+
+Run systematic **technical** quality checks and generate a comprehensive report. Don't fix issues — document them for other commands to address.
+
+This is a code-level audit, not a design critique. Check what's measurable and verifiable in the implementation.
 
 ## Diagnostic Scan
 
-Run comprehensive checks across multiple dimensions:
+Run comprehensive checks across 5 dimensions. Score each dimension 0-4 using the criteria below.
 
-1. **Accessibility (A11y)** - Check for:
-   - **Contrast issues**: Text contrast ratios < 4.5:1 (or 7:1 for AAA)
-   - **Missing ARIA**: Interactive elements without proper roles, labels, or states
-   - **Keyboard navigation**: Missing focus indicators, illogical tab order, keyboard traps
-   - **Semantic HTML**: Improper heading hierarchy, missing landmarks, divs instead of buttons
-   - **Alt text**: Missing or poor image descriptions
-   - **Form issues**: Inputs without labels, poor error messaging, missing required indicators
+### 1. Accessibility (A11y)
 
-2. **Performance** - Check for:
-   - **Layout thrashing**: Reading/writing layout properties in loops
-   - **Expensive animations**: Animating layout properties (width, height, top, left) instead of transform/opacity
-   - **Missing optimization**: Images without lazy loading, unoptimized assets, missing will-change
-   - **Bundle size**: Unnecessary imports, unused dependencies
-   - **Render performance**: Unnecessary re-renders, missing memoization
+**Check for**:
+- **Contrast issues**: Text contrast ratios < 4.5:1 (or 7:1 for AAA)
+- **Missing ARIA**: Interactive elements without proper roles, labels, or states
+- **Keyboard navigation**: Missing focus indicators, illogical tab order, keyboard traps
+- **Semantic HTML**: Improper heading hierarchy, missing landmarks, divs instead of buttons
+- **Alt text**: Missing or poor image descriptions
+- **Form issues**: Inputs without labels, poor error messaging, missing required indicators
 
-3. **Theming** - Check for:
-   - **Hard-coded colors**: Colors not using design tokens
-   - **Broken dark mode**: Missing dark mode variants, poor contrast in dark theme
-   - **Inconsistent tokens**: Using wrong tokens, mixing token types
-   - **Theme switching issues**: Values that don't update on theme change
+**Score 0-4**: 0=Inaccessible (fails WCAG A), 1=Major gaps (few ARIA labels, no keyboard nav), 2=Partial (some a11y effort, significant gaps), 3=Good (WCAG AA mostly met, minor gaps), 4=Excellent (WCAG AA fully met, approaches AAA)
 
-4. **Responsive Design** - Check for:
-   - **Fixed widths**: Hard-coded widths that break on mobile
-   - **Touch targets**: Interactive elements < 44x44px
-   - **Horizontal scroll**: Content overflow on narrow viewports
-   - **Text scaling**: Layouts that break when text size increases
-   - **Missing breakpoints**: No mobile/tablet variants
+### 2. Performance
 
-5. **Anti-Patterns (CRITICAL)** - Check against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill. Look for AI slop tells (AI color palette, gradient text, glassmorphism, hero metrics, card grids, generic fonts) and general design anti-patterns (gray on color, nested cards, bounce easing, redundant copy).
+**Check for**:
+- **Layout thrashing**: Reading/writing layout properties in loops
+- **Expensive animations**: Animating layout properties (width, height, top, left) instead of transform/opacity
+- **Missing optimization**: Images without lazy loading, unoptimized assets, missing will-change
+- **Bundle size**: Unnecessary imports, unused dependencies
+- **Render performance**: Unnecessary re-renders, missing memoization
 
-**CRITICAL**: This is an audit, not a fix. Document issues thoroughly with clear explanations of impact. Use other commands (normalize, optimize, harden, etc.) to fix issues after audit.
+**Score 0-4**: 0=Severe issues (layout thrash, unoptimized everything), 1=Major problems (no lazy loading, expensive animations), 2=Partial (some optimization, gaps remain), 3=Good (mostly optimized, minor improvements possible), 4=Excellent (fast, lean, well-optimized)
 
-## Generate Comprehensive Report
+### 3. Theming
 
-Create a detailed audit report with the following structure:
+**Check for**:
+- **Hard-coded colors**: Colors not using design tokens
+- **Broken dark mode**: Missing dark mode variants, poor contrast in dark theme
+- **Inconsistent tokens**: Using wrong tokens, mixing token types
+- **Theme switching issues**: Values that don't update on theme change
+
+**Score 0-4**: 0=No theming (hard-coded everything), 1=Minimal tokens (mostly hard-coded), 2=Partial (tokens exist but inconsistently used), 3=Good (tokens used, minor hard-coded values), 4=Excellent (full token system, dark mode works perfectly)
+
+### 4. Responsive Design
+
+**Check for**:
+- **Fixed widths**: Hard-coded widths that break on mobile
+- **Touch targets**: Interactive elements < 44x44px
+- **Horizontal scroll**: Content overflow on narrow viewports
+- **Text scaling**: Layouts that break when text size increases
+- **Missing breakpoints**: No mobile/tablet variants
+
+**Score 0-4**: 0=Desktop-only (breaks on mobile), 1=Major issues (some breakpoints, many failures), 2=Partial (works on mobile, rough edges), 3=Good (responsive, minor touch target or overflow issues), 4=Excellent (fluid, all viewports, proper touch targets)
+
+### 5. Anti-Patterns (CRITICAL)
+
+Check against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill. Look for AI slop tells (AI color palette, gradient text, glassmorphism, hero metrics, card grids, generic fonts) and general design anti-patterns (gray on color, nested cards, bounce easing, redundant copy).
+
+**Score 0-4**: 0=AI slop gallery (5+ tells), 1=Heavy AI aesthetic (3-4 tells), 2=Some tells (1-2 noticeable), 3=Mostly clean (subtle issues only), 4=No AI tells (distinctive, intentional design)
+
+## Generate Report
+
+### Audit Health Score
+
+| # | Dimension | Score | Key Finding |
+|---|-----------|-------|-------------|
+| 1 | Accessibility | ? | [most critical a11y issue or "--"] |
+| 2 | Performance | ? | |
+| 3 | Responsive Design | ? | |
+| 4 | Theming | ? | |
+| 5 | Anti-Patterns | ? | |
+| **Total** | | **??/20** | **[Rating band]** |
+
+**Rating bands**: 18-20 Excellent (minor polish), 14-17 Good (address weak dimensions), 10-13 Acceptable (significant work needed), 6-9 Poor (major overhaul), 0-5 Critical (fundamental issues)
 
 ### Anti-Patterns Verdict
-**Start here.** Pass/fail: Does this look AI-generated? List specific tells from the skill's Anti-Patterns section. Be brutally honest.
+**Start here.** Pass/fail: Does this look AI-generated? List specific tells. Be brutally honest.
 
 ### Executive Summary
-- Total issues found (count by severity)
-- Most critical issues (top 3-5)
-- Overall quality score (if applicable)
+- Audit Health Score: **??/20** ([rating band])
+- Total issues found (count by severity: P0/P1/P2/P3)
+- Top 3-5 critical issues
 - Recommended next steps
 
 ### Detailed Findings by Severity
 
+Tag every issue with **P0-P3 severity**:
+- **P0 Blocking**: Prevents task completion — fix immediately
+- **P1 Major**: Significant difficulty or WCAG AA violation — fix before release
+- **P2 Minor**: Annoyance, workaround exists — fix in next pass
+- **P3 Polish**: Nice-to-fix, no real user impact — fix if time permits
+
 For each issue, document:
-- **Location**: Where the issue occurs (component, file, line)
-- **Severity**: Critical / High / Medium / Low
-- **Category**: Accessibility / Performance / Theming / Responsive
-- **Description**: What the issue is
+- **[P?] Issue name**
+- **Location**: Component, file, line
+- **Category**: Accessibility / Performance / Theming / Responsive / Anti-Pattern
 - **Impact**: How it affects users
 - **WCAG/Standard**: Which standard it violates (if applicable)
 - **Recommendation**: How to fix it
-- **Suggested command**: Which command to use (prefer: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive — or other installed skills you're sure exist)
-
-#### Critical Issues
-[Issues that block core functionality or violate WCAG A]
-
-#### High-Severity Issues  
-[Significant usability/accessibility impact, WCAG AA violations]
-
-#### Medium-Severity Issues
-[Quality issues, WCAG AAA violations, performance concerns]
-
-#### Low-Severity Issues
-[Minor inconsistencies, optimization opportunities]
+- **Suggested command**: Which command to use (prefer: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive)
 
 ### Patterns & Systemic Issues
 
-Identify recurring problems:
+Identify recurring problems that indicate systemic gaps rather than one-off mistakes:
 - "Hard-coded colors appear in 15+ components, should use design tokens"
 - "Touch targets consistently too small (<44px) throughout mobile experience"
-- "Missing focus indicators on all custom interactive components"
 
 ### Positive Findings
 
-Note what's working well:
-- Good practices to maintain
-- Exemplary implementations to replicate elsewhere
+Note what's working well — good practices to maintain and replicate.
 
-### Recommendations by Priority
+## Recommended Actions
 
-Create actionable plan:
-1. **Immediate**: Critical blockers to fix first
-2. **Short-term**: High-severity issues (this sprint)
-3. **Medium-term**: Quality improvements (next sprint)
-4. **Long-term**: Nice-to-haves and optimizations
+List recommended commands in priority order (P0 first, then P1, then P2):
 
-### Suggested Commands for Fixes
+1. **[P?] `/command-name`** — Brief description (specific context from audit findings)
+2. **[P?] `/command-name`** — Brief description (specific context)
 
-Map issues to available commands. Prefer these: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive. You may also suggest other installed skills you're sure exist, but never invent commands.
+**Rules**: Only recommend commands from: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive. Map findings to the most appropriate command. End with `/polish` as the final step if any fixes were recommended.
 
-Examples:
-- "Use `/normalize` to align with design system (addresses N theming issues)"
-- "Use `/optimize` to improve performance (addresses N performance issues)"
-- "Use `/harden` to improve resilience (addresses N edge cases)"
+After presenting the summary, tell the user:
 
-**IMPORTANT**: Be thorough but actionable. Too many low-priority issues creates noise. Focus on what actually matters.
+> You can ask me to run these one at a time, all at once, or in any order you prefer.
+>
+> Re-run `/audit` after fixes to see your score improve.
+
+**IMPORTANT**: Be thorough but actionable. Too many P3 issues creates noise. Focus on what actually matters.
 
 **NEVER**:
 - Report issues without explaining impact (why does this matter?)
-- Mix severity levels inconsistently
-- Skip positive findings (celebrate what works)
 - Provide generic recommendations (be specific and actionable)
-- Forget to prioritize (everything can't be critical)
+- Skip positive findings (celebrate what works)
+- Forget to prioritize (everything can't be P0)
 - Report false positives without verification
 
-Remember: You're a quality auditor with exceptional attention to detail. Document systematically, prioritize ruthlessly, and provide clear paths to improvement. A good audit makes fixing easy.
\ No newline at end of file
+Remember: You're a technical quality auditor. Document systematically, prioritize ruthlessly, cite specific code locations, and provide clear paths to improvement.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/.opencode/skills/critique/SKILL.md b/.opencode/skills/critique/SKILL.md
index 29806cd81..74f39ab4e 100644
--- a/.opencode/skills/critique/SKILL.md
+++ b/.opencode/skills/critique/SKILL.md
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 name: critique
-description: Evaluate design effectiveness from a UX perspective. Assesses visual hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, and overall design quality with actionable feedback. Use when the user asks to review, critique, evaluate, audit, or give feedback on a design, UI, or component.
+description: Evaluate design from a UX perspective, assessing visual hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, cognitive load, and overall quality with quantitative scoring, persona-based testing, and actionable feedback. Use when the user asks to review, critique, evaluate, or give feedback on a design or component.
 user-invocable: true
 argument-hint: "[area (feature, page, component...)]"
 ---
@@ -11,9 +11,9 @@ Invoke /frontend-design — it contains design principles, anti-patterns, and th
 
 ---
 
-Conduct a holistic design critique, evaluating whether the interface actually works—not just technically, but as a designed experience. Think like a design director giving feedback.
+Conduct a holistic design critique, evaluating whether the interface actually works — not just technically, but as a designed experience. Think like a design director giving feedback.
 
-## Design Critique
+## Phase 1: Design Critique
 
 Evaluate the interface across these dimensions:
 
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ Evaluate the interface across these dimensions:
 
 **This is the most important check.** Does this look like every other AI-generated interface from 2024-2025?
 
-Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill—they are the fingerprints of AI-generated work. Check for the AI color palette, gradient text, dark mode with glowing accents, glassmorphism, hero metric layouts, identical card grids, generic fonts, and all other tells.
+Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill — they are the fingerprints of AI-generated work. Check for the AI color palette, gradient text, dark mode with glowing accents, glassmorphism, hero metric layouts, identical card grids, generic fonts, and all other tells.
 
 **The test**: If you showed this to someone and said "AI made this," would they believe you immediately? If yes, that's the problem.
 
@@ -31,17 +31,23 @@ Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design sk
 - Do size, color, and position communicate importance correctly?
 - Is there visual competition between elements that should have different weights?
 
-### 3. Information Architecture
+### 3. Information Architecture & Cognitive Load
+> *Consult [cognitive-load](reference/cognitive-load.md) for the working memory rule and 8-item checklist*
 - Is the structure intuitive? Would a new user understand the organization?
 - Is related content grouped logically?
-- Are there too many choices at once? (cognitive overload)
+- Are there too many choices at once? Count visible options at each decision point — if >4, flag it
 - Is the navigation clear and predictable?
+- **Progressive disclosure**: Is complexity revealed only when needed, or dumped on the user upfront?
+- **Run the 8-item cognitive load checklist** from the reference. Report failure count: 0–1 = low (good), 2–3 = moderate, 4+ = critical.
 
-### 4. Emotional Resonance
+### 4. Emotional Journey
 - What emotion does this interface evoke? Is that intentional?
 - Does it match the brand personality?
-- Does it feel trustworthy, approachable, premium, playful—whatever it should feel?
+- Does it feel trustworthy, approachable, premium, playful — whatever it should feel?
 - Would the target user feel "this is for me"?
+- **Peak-end rule**: Is the most intense moment positive? Does the experience end well (confirmation, celebration, clear next step)?
+- **Emotional valleys**: Check for onboarding frustration, error cliffs, feature discovery gaps, or anxiety spikes at high-stakes moments (payment, delete, commit)
+- **Interventions at negative moments**: Are there design interventions where users are likely to feel frustrated or anxious? (progress indicators, reassurance copy, undo options, social proof)
 
 ### 5. Discoverability & Affordance
 - Are interactive elements obviously interactive?
@@ -65,7 +71,7 @@ Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design sk
 - Is color used to communicate, not just decorate?
 - Does the palette feel cohesive?
 - Are accent colors drawing attention to the right things?
-- Does it work for colorblind users? (not just technically—does meaning still come through?)
+- Does it work for colorblind users? (not just technically — does meaning still come through?)
 
 ### 9. States & Edge Cases
 - Empty states: Do they guide users toward action, or just say "nothing here"?
@@ -79,41 +85,117 @@ Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design sk
 - Are labels and buttons unambiguous?
 - Does error copy help users fix the problem?
 
-## Generate Critique Report
+## Phase 2: Present Findings
 
 Structure your feedback as a design director would:
 
+### Design Health Score
+> *Consult [heuristics-scoring](reference/heuristics-scoring.md)*
+
+Score each of Nielsen's 10 heuristics 0–4. Present as a table:
+
+| # | Heuristic | Score | Key Issue |
+|---|-----------|-------|-----------|
+| 1 | Visibility of System Status | ? | [specific finding or "—" if solid] |
+| 2 | Match System / Real World | ? | |
+| 3 | User Control and Freedom | ? | |
+| 4 | Consistency and Standards | ? | |
+| 5 | Error Prevention | ? | |
+| 6 | Recognition Rather Than Recall | ? | |
+| 7 | Flexibility and Efficiency | ? | |
+| 8 | Aesthetic and Minimalist Design | ? | |
+| 9 | Error Recovery | ? | |
+| 10 | Help and Documentation | ? | |
+| **Total** | | **??/40** | **[Rating band]** |
+
+Be honest with scores. A 4 means genuinely excellent. Most real interfaces score 20–32.
+
 ### Anti-Patterns Verdict
 **Start here.** Pass/fail: Does this look AI-generated? List specific tells from the skill's Anti-Patterns section. Be brutally honest.
 
 ### Overall Impression
-A brief gut reaction—what works, what doesn't, and the single biggest opportunity.
+A brief gut reaction — what works, what doesn't, and the single biggest opportunity.
 
 ### What's Working
-Highlight 2-3 things done well. Be specific about why they work.
+Highlight 2–3 things done well. Be specific about why they work.
 
 ### Priority Issues
-The 3-5 most impactful design problems, ordered by importance:
+The 3–5 most impactful design problems, ordered by importance.
 
-For each issue:
-- **What**: Name the problem clearly
+For each issue, tag with **P0–P3 severity** (consult [heuristics-scoring](reference/heuristics-scoring.md) for severity definitions):
+- **[P?] What**: Name the problem clearly
 - **Why it matters**: How this hurts users or undermines goals
 - **Fix**: What to do about it (be concrete)
-- **Command**: Which command to use (prefer: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive — or other installed skills you're sure exist)
+- **Suggested command**: Which command could address this (from: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive)
+
+### Persona Red Flags
+> *Consult [personas](reference/personas.md)*
+
+Auto-select 2–3 personas most relevant to this interface type (use the selection table in the reference). If `AGENTS.md` contains a `## Design Context` section from `teach-impeccable`, also generate 1–2 project-specific personas from the audience/brand info.
+
+For each selected persona, walk through the primary user action and list specific red flags found:
+
+**Alex (Power User)**: No keyboard shortcuts detected. Form requires 8 clicks for primary action. Forced modal onboarding. ⚠️ High abandonment risk.
+
+**Jordan (First-Timer)**: Icon-only nav in sidebar. Technical jargon in error messages ("404 Not Found"). No visible help. ⚠️ Will abandon at step 2.
+
+Be specific — name the exact elements and interactions that fail each persona. Don't write generic persona descriptions; write what broke for them.
 
 ### Minor Observations
 Quick notes on smaller issues worth addressing.
 
-### Questions to Consider
-Provocative questions that might unlock better solutions:
-- "What if the primary action were more prominent?"
-- "Does this need to feel this complex?"
-- "What would a confident version of this look like?"
-
 **Remember**:
-- Be direct—vague feedback wastes everyone's time
-- Be specific—"the submit button" not "some elements"
+- Be direct — vague feedback wastes everyone's time
+- Be specific — "the submit button" not "some elements"
 - Say what's wrong AND why it matters to users
 - Give concrete suggestions, not just "consider exploring..."
-- Prioritize ruthlessly—if everything is important, nothing is
-- Don't soften criticism—developers need honest feedback to ship great design
\ No newline at end of file
+- Prioritize ruthlessly — if everything is important, nothing is
+- Don't soften criticism — developers need honest feedback to ship great design
+
+## Phase 3: Ask the User
+
+**After presenting findings**, use targeted questions based on what was actually found. STOP and call the `question` tool to clarify. These answers will shape the action plan.
+
+Ask questions along these lines (adapt to the specific findings — do NOT ask generic questions):
+
+1. **Priority direction**: Based on the issues found, ask which category matters most to the user right now. For example: "I found problems with visual hierarchy, color usage, and information overload. Which area should we tackle first?" Offer the top 2–3 issue categories as options.
+
+2. **Design intent**: If the critique found a tonal mismatch, ask whether it was intentional. For example: "The interface feels clinical and corporate. Is that the intended tone, or should it feel warmer/bolder/more playful?" Offer 2–3 tonal directions as options based on what would fix the issues found.
+
+3. **Scope**: Ask how much the user wants to take on. For example: "I found N issues. Want to address everything, or focus on the top 3?" Offer scope options like "Top 3 only", "All issues", "Critical issues only".
+
+4. **Constraints** (optional — only ask if relevant): If the findings touch many areas, ask if anything is off-limits. For example: "Should any sections stay as-is?" This prevents the plan from touching things the user considers done.
+
+**Rules for questions**:
+- Every question must reference specific findings from Phase 2 — never ask generic "who is your audience?" questions
+- Keep it to 2–4 questions maximum — respect the user's time
+- Offer concrete options, not open-ended prompts
+- If findings are straightforward (e.g., only 1–2 clear issues), skip questions and go directly to Phase 4
+
+## Phase 4: Recommended Actions
+
+**After receiving the user's answers**, present a prioritized action summary reflecting the user's priorities and scope from Phase 3.
+
+### Action Summary
+
+List recommended commands in priority order, based on the user's answers:
+
+1. **`/command-name`** — Brief description of what to fix (specific context from critique findings)
+2. **`/command-name`** — Brief description (specific context)
+...
+
+**Rules for recommendations**:
+- Only recommend commands from: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive
+- Order by the user's stated priorities first, then by impact
+- Each item's description should carry enough context that the command knows what to focus on
+- Map each Priority Issue to the appropriate command
+- Skip commands that would address zero issues
+- If the user chose a limited scope, only include items within that scope
+- If the user marked areas as off-limits, exclude commands that would touch those areas
+- End with `/polish` as the final step if any fixes were recommended
+
+After presenting the summary, tell the user:
+
+> You can ask me to run these one at a time, all at once, or in any order you prefer.
+>
+> Re-run `/critique` after fixes to see your score improve.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/.opencode/skills/critique/reference/cognitive-load.md b/.opencode/skills/critique/reference/cognitive-load.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..313df166b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.opencode/skills/critique/reference/cognitive-load.md
@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+# Cognitive Load Assessment
+
+Cognitive load is the total mental effort required to use an interface. Overloaded users make mistakes, get frustrated, and leave. This reference helps identify and fix cognitive overload.
+
+---
+
+## Three Types of Cognitive Load
+
+### Intrinsic Load — The Task Itself
+Complexity inherent to what the user is trying to do. You can't eliminate this, but you can structure it.
+
+**Manage it by**:
+- Breaking complex tasks into discrete steps
+- Providing scaffolding (templates, defaults, examples)
+- Progressive disclosure — show what's needed now, hide the rest
+- Grouping related decisions together
+
+### Extraneous Load — Bad Design
+Mental effort caused by poor design choices. **Eliminate this ruthlessly** — it's pure waste.
+
+**Common sources**:
+- Confusing navigation that requires mental mapping
+- Unclear labels that force users to guess meaning
+- Visual clutter competing for attention
+- Inconsistent patterns that prevent learning
+- Unnecessary steps between user intent and result
+
+### Germane Load — Learning Effort
+Mental effort spent building understanding. This is *good* cognitive load — it leads to mastery.
+
+**Support it by**:
+- Progressive disclosure that reveals complexity gradually
+- Consistent patterns that reward learning
+- Feedback that confirms correct understanding
+- Onboarding that teaches through action, not walls of text
+
+---
+
+## Cognitive Load Checklist
+
+Evaluate the interface against these 8 items:
+
+- [ ] **Single focus**: Can the user complete their primary task without distraction from competing elements?
+- [ ] **Chunking**: Is information presented in digestible groups (≤4 items per group)?
+- [ ] **Grouping**: Are related items visually grouped together (proximity, borders, shared background)?
+- [ ] **Visual hierarchy**: Is it immediately clear what's most important on the screen?
+- [ ] **One thing at a time**: Can the user focus on a single decision before moving to the next?
+- [ ] **Minimal choices**: Are decisions simplified (≤4 visible options at any decision point)?
+- [ ] **Working memory**: Does the user need to remember information from a previous screen to act on the current one?
+- [ ] **Progressive disclosure**: Is complexity revealed only when the user needs it?
+
+**Scoring**: Count the failed items. 0–1 failures = low cognitive load (good). 2–3 = moderate (address soon). 4+ = high cognitive load (critical fix needed).
+
+---
+
+## The Working Memory Rule
+
+**Humans can hold ≤4 items in working memory at once** (Miller's Law revised by Cowan, 2001).
+
+At any decision point, count the number of distinct options, actions, or pieces of information a user must simultaneously consider:
+- **≤4 items**: Within working memory limits — manageable
+- **5–7 items**: Pushing the boundary — consider grouping or progressive disclosure
+- **8+ items**: Overloaded — users will skip, misclick, or abandon
+
+**Practical applications**:
+- Navigation menus: ≤5 top-level items (group the rest under clear categories)
+- Form sections: ≤4 fields visible per group before a visual break
+- Action buttons: 1 primary, 1–2 secondary, group the rest in a menu
+- Dashboard widgets: ≤4 key metrics visible without scrolling
+- Pricing tiers: ≤3 options (more causes analysis paralysis)
+
+---
+
+## Common Cognitive Load Violations
+
+### 1. The Wall of Options
+**Problem**: Presenting 10+ choices at once with no hierarchy.
+**Fix**: Group into categories, highlight recommended, use progressive disclosure.
+
+### 2. The Memory Bridge
+**Problem**: User must remember info from step 1 to complete step 3.
+**Fix**: Keep relevant context visible, or repeat it where it's needed.
+
+### 3. The Hidden Navigation
+**Problem**: User must build a mental map of where things are.
+**Fix**: Always show current location (breadcrumbs, active states, progress indicators).
+
+### 4. The Jargon Barrier
+**Problem**: Technical or domain language forces translation effort.
+**Fix**: Use plain language. If domain terms are unavoidable, define them inline.
+
+### 5. The Visual Noise Floor
+**Problem**: Every element has the same visual weight — nothing stands out.
+**Fix**: Establish clear hierarchy: one primary element, 2–3 secondary, everything else muted.
+
+### 6. The Inconsistent Pattern
+**Problem**: Similar actions work differently in different places.
+**Fix**: Standardize interaction patterns. Same type of action = same type of UI.
+
+### 7. The Multi-Task Demand
+**Problem**: Interface requires processing multiple simultaneous inputs (reading + deciding + navigating).
+**Fix**: Sequence the steps. Let the user do one thing at a time.
+
+### 8. The Context Switch
+**Problem**: User must jump between screens/tabs/modals to gather info for a single decision.
+**Fix**: Co-locate the information needed for each decision. Reduce back-and-forth.
diff --git a/.opencode/skills/critique/reference/heuristics-scoring.md b/.opencode/skills/critique/reference/heuristics-scoring.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..fd5b1b08b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.opencode/skills/critique/reference/heuristics-scoring.md
@@ -0,0 +1,234 @@
+# Heuristics Scoring Guide
+
+Score each of Nielsen's 10 Usability Heuristics on a 0–4 scale. Be honest — a 4 means genuinely excellent, not "good enough."
+
+## Nielsen's 10 Heuristics
+
+### 1. Visibility of System Status
+
+Keep users informed about what's happening through timely, appropriate feedback.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Loading indicators during async operations
+- Confirmation of user actions (save, submit, delete)
+- Progress indicators for multi-step processes
+- Current location in navigation (breadcrumbs, active states)
+- Form validation feedback (inline, not just on submit)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | No feedback — user is guessing what happened |
+| 1 | Rare feedback — most actions produce no visible response |
+| 2 | Partial — some states communicated, major gaps remain |
+| 3 | Good — most operations give clear feedback, minor gaps |
+| 4 | Excellent — every action confirms, progress is always visible |
+
+### 2. Match Between System and Real World
+
+Speak the user's language. Follow real-world conventions. Information appears in natural, logical order.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Familiar terminology (no unexplained jargon)
+- Logical information order matching user expectations
+- Recognizable icons and metaphors
+- Domain-appropriate language for the target audience
+- Natural reading flow (left-to-right, top-to-bottom priority)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Pure tech jargon, alien to users |
+| 1 | Mostly confusing — requires domain expertise to navigate |
+| 2 | Mixed — some plain language, some jargon leaks through |
+| 3 | Mostly natural — occasional term needs context |
+| 4 | Speaks the user's language fluently throughout |
+
+### 3. User Control and Freedom
+
+Users need a clear "emergency exit" from unwanted states without extended dialogue.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Undo/redo functionality
+- Cancel buttons on forms and modals
+- Clear navigation back to safety (home, previous)
+- Easy way to clear filters, search, selections
+- Escape from long or multi-step processes
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Users get trapped — no way out without refreshing |
+| 1 | Difficult exits — must find obscure paths to escape |
+| 2 | Some exits — main flows have escape, edge cases don't |
+| 3 | Good control — users can exit and undo most actions |
+| 4 | Full control — undo, cancel, back, and escape everywhere |
+
+### 4. Consistency and Standards
+
+Users shouldn't wonder whether different words, situations, or actions mean the same thing.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Consistent terminology throughout the interface
+- Same actions produce same results everywhere
+- Platform conventions followed (standard UI patterns)
+- Visual consistency (colors, typography, spacing, components)
+- Consistent interaction patterns (same gesture = same behavior)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Inconsistent everywhere — feels like different products stitched together |
+| 1 | Many inconsistencies — similar things look/behave differently |
+| 2 | Partially consistent — main flows match, details diverge |
+| 3 | Mostly consistent — occasional deviation, nothing confusing |
+| 4 | Fully consistent — cohesive system, predictable behavior |
+
+### 5. Error Prevention
+
+Better than good error messages is a design that prevents problems in the first place.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Confirmation before destructive actions (delete, overwrite)
+- Constraints preventing invalid input (date pickers, dropdowns)
+- Smart defaults that reduce errors
+- Clear labels that prevent misunderstanding
+- Autosave and draft recovery
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Errors easy to make — no guardrails anywhere |
+| 1 | Few safeguards — some inputs validated, most aren't |
+| 2 | Partial prevention — common errors caught, edge cases slip |
+| 3 | Good prevention — most error paths blocked proactively |
+| 4 | Excellent — errors nearly impossible through smart constraints |
+
+### 6. Recognition Rather Than Recall
+
+Minimize memory load. Make objects, actions, and options visible or easily retrievable.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Visible options (not buried in hidden menus)
+- Contextual help when needed (tooltips, inline hints)
+- Recent items and history
+- Autocomplete and suggestions
+- Labels on icons (not icon-only navigation)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Heavy memorization — users must remember paths and commands |
+| 1 | Mostly recall — many hidden features, few visible cues |
+| 2 | Some aids — main actions visible, secondary features hidden |
+| 3 | Good recognition — most things discoverable, few memory demands |
+| 4 | Everything discoverable — users never need to memorize |
+
+### 7. Flexibility and Efficiency of Use
+
+Accelerators — invisible to novices — speed up expert interaction.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Keyboard shortcuts for common actions
+- Customizable interface elements
+- Recent items and favorites
+- Bulk/batch actions
+- Power user features that don't complicate the basics
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | One rigid path — no shortcuts or alternatives |
+| 1 | Limited flexibility — few alternatives to the main path |
+| 2 | Some shortcuts — basic keyboard support, limited bulk actions |
+| 3 | Good accelerators — keyboard nav, some customization |
+| 4 | Highly flexible — multiple paths, power features, customizable |
+
+### 8. Aesthetic and Minimalist Design
+
+Interfaces should not contain irrelevant or rarely needed information. Every element should serve a purpose.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Only necessary information visible at each step
+- Clear visual hierarchy directing attention
+- Purposeful use of color and emphasis
+- No decorative clutter competing for attention
+- Focused, uncluttered layouts
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Overwhelming — everything competes for attention equally |
+| 1 | Cluttered — too much noise, hard to find what matters |
+| 2 | Some clutter — main content clear, periphery noisy |
+| 3 | Mostly clean — focused design, minor visual noise |
+| 4 | Perfectly minimal — every element earns its pixel |
+
+### 9. Help Users Recognize, Diagnose, and Recover from Errors
+
+Error messages should use plain language, precisely indicate the problem, and constructively suggest a solution.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Plain language error messages (no error codes for users)
+- Specific problem identification ("Email is missing @" not "Invalid input")
+- Actionable recovery suggestions
+- Errors displayed near the source of the problem
+- Non-blocking error handling (don't wipe the form)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Cryptic errors — codes, jargon, or no message at all |
+| 1 | Vague errors — "Something went wrong" with no guidance |
+| 2 | Clear but unhelpful — names the problem but not the fix |
+| 3 | Clear with suggestions — identifies problem and offers next steps |
+| 4 | Perfect recovery — pinpoints issue, suggests fix, preserves user work |
+
+### 10. Help and Documentation
+
+Even if the system is usable without docs, help should be easy to find, task-focused, and concise.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Searchable help or documentation
+- Contextual help (tooltips, inline hints, guided tours)
+- Task-focused organization (not feature-organized)
+- Concise, scannable content
+- Easy access without leaving current context
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | No help available anywhere |
+| 1 | Help exists but hard to find or irrelevant |
+| 2 | Basic help — FAQ or docs exist, not contextual |
+| 3 | Good documentation — searchable, mostly task-focused |
+| 4 | Excellent contextual help — right info at the right moment |
+
+---
+
+## Score Summary
+
+**Total possible**: 40 points (10 heuristics × 4 max)
+
+| Score Range | Rating | What It Means |
+|-------------|--------|---------------|
+| 36–40 | Excellent | Minor polish only — ship it |
+| 28–35 | Good | Address weak areas, solid foundation |
+| 20–27 | Acceptable | Significant improvements needed before users are happy |
+| 12–19 | Poor | Major UX overhaul required — core experience broken |
+| 0–11 | Critical | Redesign needed — unusable in current state |
+
+---
+
+## Issue Severity (P0–P3)
+
+Tag each individual issue found during scoring with a priority level:
+
+| Priority | Name | Description | Action |
+|----------|------|-------------|--------|
+| **P0** | Blocking | Prevents task completion entirely | Fix immediately — this is a showstopper |
+| **P1** | Major | Causes significant difficulty or confusion | Fix before release |
+| **P2** | Minor | Annoyance, but workaround exists | Fix in next pass |
+| **P3** | Polish | Nice-to-fix, no real user impact | Fix if time permits |
+
+**Tip**: If you're unsure between two levels, ask: "Would a user contact support about this?" If yes, it's at least P1.
diff --git a/.opencode/skills/critique/reference/personas.md b/.opencode/skills/critique/reference/personas.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..2d0f9cbf3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.opencode/skills/critique/reference/personas.md
@@ -0,0 +1,178 @@
+# Persona-Based Design Testing
+
+Test the interface through the eyes of 5 distinct user archetypes. Each persona exposes different failure modes that a single "design director" perspective would miss.
+
+**How to use**: Select 2–3 personas most relevant to the interface being critiqued. Walk through the primary user action as each persona. Report specific red flags — not generic concerns.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Impatient Power User — "Alex"
+
+**Profile**: Expert with similar products. Expects efficiency, hates hand-holding. Will find shortcuts or leave.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Skips all onboarding and instructions
+- Looks for keyboard shortcuts immediately
+- Tries to bulk-select, batch-edit, and automate
+- Gets frustrated by required steps that feel unnecessary
+- Abandons if anything feels slow or patronizing
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Can Alex complete the core task in under 60 seconds?
+- Are there keyboard shortcuts for common actions?
+- Can onboarding be skipped entirely?
+- Do modals have keyboard dismiss (Esc)?
+- Is there a "power user" path (shortcuts, bulk actions)?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Forced tutorials or unskippable onboarding
+- No keyboard navigation for primary actions
+- Slow animations that can't be skipped
+- One-item-at-a-time workflows where batch would be natural
+- Redundant confirmation steps for low-risk actions
+
+---
+
+## 2. Confused First-Timer — "Jordan"
+
+**Profile**: Never used this type of product. Needs guidance at every step. Will abandon rather than figure it out.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Reads all instructions carefully
+- Hesitates before clicking anything unfamiliar
+- Looks for help or support constantly
+- Misunderstands jargon and abbreviations
+- Takes the most literal interpretation of any label
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Is the first action obviously clear within 5 seconds?
+- Are all icons labeled with text?
+- Is there contextual help at decision points?
+- Does terminology assume prior knowledge?
+- Is there a clear "back" or "undo" at every step?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Icon-only navigation with no labels
+- Technical jargon without explanation
+- No visible help option or guidance
+- Ambiguous next steps after completing an action
+- No confirmation that an action succeeded
+
+---
+
+## 3. Accessibility-Dependent User — "Sam"
+
+**Profile**: Uses screen reader (VoiceOver/NVDA), keyboard-only navigation. May have low vision, motor impairment, or cognitive differences.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Tabs through the interface linearly
+- Relies on ARIA labels and heading structure
+- Cannot see hover states or visual-only indicators
+- Needs adequate color contrast (4.5:1 minimum)
+- May use browser zoom up to 200%
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Can the entire primary flow be completed keyboard-only?
+- Are all interactive elements focusable with visible focus indicators?
+- Do images have meaningful alt text?
+- Is color contrast WCAG AA compliant (4.5:1 for text)?
+- Does the screen reader announce state changes (loading, success, errors)?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Click-only interactions with no keyboard alternative
+- Missing or invisible focus indicators
+- Meaning conveyed by color alone (red = error, green = success)
+- Unlabeled form fields or buttons
+- Time-limited actions without extension option
+- Custom components that break screen reader flow
+
+---
+
+## 4. Deliberate Stress Tester — "Riley"
+
+**Profile**: Methodical user who pushes interfaces beyond the happy path. Tests edge cases, tries unexpected inputs, and probes for gaps in the experience.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Tests edge cases intentionally (empty states, long strings, special characters)
+- Submits forms with unexpected data (emoji, RTL text, very long values)
+- Tries to break workflows by navigating backwards, refreshing mid-flow, or opening in multiple tabs
+- Looks for inconsistencies between what the UI promises and what actually happens
+- Documents problems methodically
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- What happens at the edges (0 items, 1000 items, very long text)?
+- Do error states recover gracefully or leave the UI in a broken state?
+- What happens on refresh mid-workflow? Is state preserved?
+- Are there features that appear to work but produce broken results?
+- How does the UI handle unexpected input (emoji, special chars, paste from Excel)?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Features that appear to work but silently fail or produce wrong results
+- Error handling that exposes technical details or leaves UI in a broken state
+- Empty states that show nothing useful ("No results" with no guidance)
+- Workflows that lose user data on refresh or navigation
+- Inconsistent behavior between similar interactions in different parts of the UI
+
+---
+
+## 5. Distracted Mobile User — "Casey"
+
+**Profile**: Using phone one-handed on the go. Frequently interrupted. Possibly on a slow connection.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Uses thumb only — prefers bottom-of-screen actions
+- Gets interrupted mid-flow and returns later
+- Switches between apps frequently
+- Has limited attention span and low patience
+- Types as little as possible, prefers taps and selections
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Are primary actions in the thumb zone (bottom half of screen)?
+- Is state preserved if the user leaves and returns?
+- Does it work on slow connections (3G)?
+- Can forms leverage autocomplete and smart defaults?
+- Are touch targets at least 44×44pt?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Important actions positioned at the top of the screen (unreachable by thumb)
+- No state persistence — progress lost on tab switch or interruption
+- Large text inputs required where selection would work
+- Heavy assets loading on every page (no lazy loading)
+- Tiny tap targets or targets too close together
+
+---
+
+## Selecting Personas
+
+Choose personas based on the interface type:
+
+| Interface Type | Primary Personas | Why |
+|---------------|-----------------|-----|
+| Landing page / marketing | Jordan, Riley, Casey | First impressions, trust, mobile |
+| Dashboard / admin | Alex, Sam | Power users, accessibility |
+| E-commerce / checkout | Casey, Riley, Jordan | Mobile, edge cases, clarity |
+| Onboarding flow | Jordan, Casey | Confusion, interruption |
+| Data-heavy / analytics | Alex, Sam | Efficiency, keyboard nav |
+| Form-heavy / wizard | Jordan, Sam, Casey | Clarity, accessibility, mobile |
+
+---
+
+## Project-Specific Personas
+
+If `AGENTS.md` contains a `## Design Context` section (generated by `teach-impeccable`), derive 1–2 additional personas from the audience and brand information:
+
+1. Read the target audience description
+2. Identify the primary user archetype not covered by the 5 predefined personas
+3. Create a persona following this template:
+
+```
+### [Role] — "[Name]"
+
+**Profile**: [2-3 key characteristics derived from Design Context]
+
+**Behaviors**: [3-4 specific behaviors based on the described audience]
+
+**Red Flags**: [3-4 things that would alienate this specific user type]
+```
+
+Only generate project-specific personas when real Design Context data is available. Don't invent audience details — use the 5 predefined personas when no context exists.
diff --git a/.pi/skills/audit/SKILL.md b/.pi/skills/audit/SKILL.md
index 6490cb9aa..6dc747d60 100644
--- a/.pi/skills/audit/SKILL.md
+++ b/.pi/skills/audit/SKILL.md
@@ -1,123 +1,145 @@
 ---
 name: audit
-description: Perform a comprehensive audit of interface quality across accessibility, performance, theming, and responsive design. Generates a prioritized report with severity ratings. Use when the user wants a design review, accessibility check, quality audit, or a full list of UI issues to fix.
+description: Run technical quality checks across accessibility, performance, theming, responsive design, and anti-patterns. Generates a scored report with P0-P3 severity ratings and actionable plan. Use when the user wants an accessibility check, performance audit, or technical quality review.
 ---
 
-Run systematic quality checks and generate a comprehensive audit report with prioritized issues and actionable recommendations. Don't fix issues - document them for other commands to address.
+## MANDATORY PREPARATION
 
-**First**: Invoke /frontend-design for design principles and anti-patterns.
+Invoke /frontend-design — it contains design principles, anti-patterns, and the **Context Gathering Protocol**. Follow the protocol before proceeding — if no design context exists yet, you MUST run /teach-impeccable first.
+
+---
+
+Run systematic **technical** quality checks and generate a comprehensive report. Don't fix issues — document them for other commands to address.
+
+This is a code-level audit, not a design critique. Check what's measurable and verifiable in the implementation.
 
 ## Diagnostic Scan
 
-Run comprehensive checks across multiple dimensions:
+Run comprehensive checks across 5 dimensions. Score each dimension 0-4 using the criteria below.
 
-1. **Accessibility (A11y)** - Check for:
-   - **Contrast issues**: Text contrast ratios < 4.5:1 (or 7:1 for AAA)
-   - **Missing ARIA**: Interactive elements without proper roles, labels, or states
-   - **Keyboard navigation**: Missing focus indicators, illogical tab order, keyboard traps
-   - **Semantic HTML**: Improper heading hierarchy, missing landmarks, divs instead of buttons
-   - **Alt text**: Missing or poor image descriptions
-   - **Form issues**: Inputs without labels, poor error messaging, missing required indicators
+### 1. Accessibility (A11y)
 
-2. **Performance** - Check for:
-   - **Layout thrashing**: Reading/writing layout properties in loops
-   - **Expensive animations**: Animating layout properties (width, height, top, left) instead of transform/opacity
-   - **Missing optimization**: Images without lazy loading, unoptimized assets, missing will-change
-   - **Bundle size**: Unnecessary imports, unused dependencies
-   - **Render performance**: Unnecessary re-renders, missing memoization
+**Check for**:
+- **Contrast issues**: Text contrast ratios < 4.5:1 (or 7:1 for AAA)
+- **Missing ARIA**: Interactive elements without proper roles, labels, or states
+- **Keyboard navigation**: Missing focus indicators, illogical tab order, keyboard traps
+- **Semantic HTML**: Improper heading hierarchy, missing landmarks, divs instead of buttons
+- **Alt text**: Missing or poor image descriptions
+- **Form issues**: Inputs without labels, poor error messaging, missing required indicators
 
-3. **Theming** - Check for:
-   - **Hard-coded colors**: Colors not using design tokens
-   - **Broken dark mode**: Missing dark mode variants, poor contrast in dark theme
-   - **Inconsistent tokens**: Using wrong tokens, mixing token types
-   - **Theme switching issues**: Values that don't update on theme change
+**Score 0-4**: 0=Inaccessible (fails WCAG A), 1=Major gaps (few ARIA labels, no keyboard nav), 2=Partial (some a11y effort, significant gaps), 3=Good (WCAG AA mostly met, minor gaps), 4=Excellent (WCAG AA fully met, approaches AAA)
 
-4. **Responsive Design** - Check for:
-   - **Fixed widths**: Hard-coded widths that break on mobile
-   - **Touch targets**: Interactive elements < 44x44px
-   - **Horizontal scroll**: Content overflow on narrow viewports
-   - **Text scaling**: Layouts that break when text size increases
-   - **Missing breakpoints**: No mobile/tablet variants
+### 2. Performance
 
-5. **Anti-Patterns (CRITICAL)** - Check against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill. Look for AI slop tells (AI color palette, gradient text, glassmorphism, hero metrics, card grids, generic fonts) and general design anti-patterns (gray on color, nested cards, bounce easing, redundant copy).
+**Check for**:
+- **Layout thrashing**: Reading/writing layout properties in loops
+- **Expensive animations**: Animating layout properties (width, height, top, left) instead of transform/opacity
+- **Missing optimization**: Images without lazy loading, unoptimized assets, missing will-change
+- **Bundle size**: Unnecessary imports, unused dependencies
+- **Render performance**: Unnecessary re-renders, missing memoization
 
-**CRITICAL**: This is an audit, not a fix. Document issues thoroughly with clear explanations of impact. Use other commands (normalize, optimize, harden, etc.) to fix issues after audit.
+**Score 0-4**: 0=Severe issues (layout thrash, unoptimized everything), 1=Major problems (no lazy loading, expensive animations), 2=Partial (some optimization, gaps remain), 3=Good (mostly optimized, minor improvements possible), 4=Excellent (fast, lean, well-optimized)
 
-## Generate Comprehensive Report
+### 3. Theming
 
-Create a detailed audit report with the following structure:
+**Check for**:
+- **Hard-coded colors**: Colors not using design tokens
+- **Broken dark mode**: Missing dark mode variants, poor contrast in dark theme
+- **Inconsistent tokens**: Using wrong tokens, mixing token types
+- **Theme switching issues**: Values that don't update on theme change
+
+**Score 0-4**: 0=No theming (hard-coded everything), 1=Minimal tokens (mostly hard-coded), 2=Partial (tokens exist but inconsistently used), 3=Good (tokens used, minor hard-coded values), 4=Excellent (full token system, dark mode works perfectly)
+
+### 4. Responsive Design
+
+**Check for**:
+- **Fixed widths**: Hard-coded widths that break on mobile
+- **Touch targets**: Interactive elements < 44x44px
+- **Horizontal scroll**: Content overflow on narrow viewports
+- **Text scaling**: Layouts that break when text size increases
+- **Missing breakpoints**: No mobile/tablet variants
+
+**Score 0-4**: 0=Desktop-only (breaks on mobile), 1=Major issues (some breakpoints, many failures), 2=Partial (works on mobile, rough edges), 3=Good (responsive, minor touch target or overflow issues), 4=Excellent (fluid, all viewports, proper touch targets)
+
+### 5. Anti-Patterns (CRITICAL)
+
+Check against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill. Look for AI slop tells (AI color palette, gradient text, glassmorphism, hero metrics, card grids, generic fonts) and general design anti-patterns (gray on color, nested cards, bounce easing, redundant copy).
+
+**Score 0-4**: 0=AI slop gallery (5+ tells), 1=Heavy AI aesthetic (3-4 tells), 2=Some tells (1-2 noticeable), 3=Mostly clean (subtle issues only), 4=No AI tells (distinctive, intentional design)
+
+## Generate Report
+
+### Audit Health Score
+
+| # | Dimension | Score | Key Finding |
+|---|-----------|-------|-------------|
+| 1 | Accessibility | ? | [most critical a11y issue or "--"] |
+| 2 | Performance | ? | |
+| 3 | Responsive Design | ? | |
+| 4 | Theming | ? | |
+| 5 | Anti-Patterns | ? | |
+| **Total** | | **??/20** | **[Rating band]** |
+
+**Rating bands**: 18-20 Excellent (minor polish), 14-17 Good (address weak dimensions), 10-13 Acceptable (significant work needed), 6-9 Poor (major overhaul), 0-5 Critical (fundamental issues)
 
 ### Anti-Patterns Verdict
-**Start here.** Pass/fail: Does this look AI-generated? List specific tells from the skill's Anti-Patterns section. Be brutally honest.
+**Start here.** Pass/fail: Does this look AI-generated? List specific tells. Be brutally honest.
 
 ### Executive Summary
-- Total issues found (count by severity)
-- Most critical issues (top 3-5)
-- Overall quality score (if applicable)
+- Audit Health Score: **??/20** ([rating band])
+- Total issues found (count by severity: P0/P1/P2/P3)
+- Top 3-5 critical issues
 - Recommended next steps
 
 ### Detailed Findings by Severity
 
+Tag every issue with **P0-P3 severity**:
+- **P0 Blocking**: Prevents task completion — fix immediately
+- **P1 Major**: Significant difficulty or WCAG AA violation — fix before release
+- **P2 Minor**: Annoyance, workaround exists — fix in next pass
+- **P3 Polish**: Nice-to-fix, no real user impact — fix if time permits
+
 For each issue, document:
-- **Location**: Where the issue occurs (component, file, line)
-- **Severity**: Critical / High / Medium / Low
-- **Category**: Accessibility / Performance / Theming / Responsive
-- **Description**: What the issue is
+- **[P?] Issue name**
+- **Location**: Component, file, line
+- **Category**: Accessibility / Performance / Theming / Responsive / Anti-Pattern
 - **Impact**: How it affects users
 - **WCAG/Standard**: Which standard it violates (if applicable)
 - **Recommendation**: How to fix it
-- **Suggested command**: Which command to use (prefer: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive — or other installed skills you're sure exist)
-
-#### Critical Issues
-[Issues that block core functionality or violate WCAG A]
-
-#### High-Severity Issues  
-[Significant usability/accessibility impact, WCAG AA violations]
-
-#### Medium-Severity Issues
-[Quality issues, WCAG AAA violations, performance concerns]
-
-#### Low-Severity Issues
-[Minor inconsistencies, optimization opportunities]
+- **Suggested command**: Which command to use (prefer: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive)
 
 ### Patterns & Systemic Issues
 
-Identify recurring problems:
+Identify recurring problems that indicate systemic gaps rather than one-off mistakes:
 - "Hard-coded colors appear in 15+ components, should use design tokens"
 - "Touch targets consistently too small (<44px) throughout mobile experience"
-- "Missing focus indicators on all custom interactive components"
 
 ### Positive Findings
 
-Note what's working well:
-- Good practices to maintain
-- Exemplary implementations to replicate elsewhere
+Note what's working well — good practices to maintain and replicate.
 
-### Recommendations by Priority
+## Recommended Actions
 
-Create actionable plan:
-1. **Immediate**: Critical blockers to fix first
-2. **Short-term**: High-severity issues (this sprint)
-3. **Medium-term**: Quality improvements (next sprint)
-4. **Long-term**: Nice-to-haves and optimizations
+List recommended commands in priority order (P0 first, then P1, then P2):
 
-### Suggested Commands for Fixes
+1. **[P?] `/command-name`** — Brief description (specific context from audit findings)
+2. **[P?] `/command-name`** — Brief description (specific context)
 
-Map issues to available commands. Prefer these: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive. You may also suggest other installed skills you're sure exist, but never invent commands.
+**Rules**: Only recommend commands from: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive. Map findings to the most appropriate command. End with `/polish` as the final step if any fixes were recommended.
 
-Examples:
-- "Use `/normalize` to align with design system (addresses N theming issues)"
-- "Use `/optimize` to improve performance (addresses N performance issues)"
-- "Use `/harden` to improve resilience (addresses N edge cases)"
+After presenting the summary, tell the user:
 
-**IMPORTANT**: Be thorough but actionable. Too many low-priority issues creates noise. Focus on what actually matters.
+> You can ask me to run these one at a time, all at once, or in any order you prefer.
+>
+> Re-run `/audit` after fixes to see your score improve.
+
+**IMPORTANT**: Be thorough but actionable. Too many P3 issues creates noise. Focus on what actually matters.
 
 **NEVER**:
 - Report issues without explaining impact (why does this matter?)
-- Mix severity levels inconsistently
-- Skip positive findings (celebrate what works)
 - Provide generic recommendations (be specific and actionable)
-- Forget to prioritize (everything can't be critical)
+- Skip positive findings (celebrate what works)
+- Forget to prioritize (everything can't be P0)
 - Report false positives without verification
 
-Remember: You're a quality auditor with exceptional attention to detail. Document systematically, prioritize ruthlessly, and provide clear paths to improvement. A good audit makes fixing easy.
\ No newline at end of file
+Remember: You're a technical quality auditor. Document systematically, prioritize ruthlessly, cite specific code locations, and provide clear paths to improvement.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/.pi/skills/critique/SKILL.md b/.pi/skills/critique/SKILL.md
index f964b3eee..dba9b20aa 100644
--- a/.pi/skills/critique/SKILL.md
+++ b/.pi/skills/critique/SKILL.md
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 name: critique
-description: Evaluate design effectiveness from a UX perspective. Assesses visual hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, and overall design quality with actionable feedback. Use when the user asks to review, critique, evaluate, audit, or give feedback on a design, UI, or component.
+description: Evaluate design from a UX perspective, assessing visual hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, cognitive load, and overall quality with quantitative scoring, persona-based testing, and actionable feedback. Use when the user asks to review, critique, evaluate, or give feedback on a design or component.
 ---
 
 ## MANDATORY PREPARATION
@@ -9,9 +9,9 @@ Invoke /frontend-design — it contains design principles, anti-patterns, and th
 
 ---
 
-Conduct a holistic design critique, evaluating whether the interface actually works—not just technically, but as a designed experience. Think like a design director giving feedback.
+Conduct a holistic design critique, evaluating whether the interface actually works — not just technically, but as a designed experience. Think like a design director giving feedback.
 
-## Design Critique
+## Phase 1: Design Critique
 
 Evaluate the interface across these dimensions:
 
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ Evaluate the interface across these dimensions:
 
 **This is the most important check.** Does this look like every other AI-generated interface from 2024-2025?
 
-Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill—they are the fingerprints of AI-generated work. Check for the AI color palette, gradient text, dark mode with glowing accents, glassmorphism, hero metric layouts, identical card grids, generic fonts, and all other tells.
+Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill — they are the fingerprints of AI-generated work. Check for the AI color palette, gradient text, dark mode with glowing accents, glassmorphism, hero metric layouts, identical card grids, generic fonts, and all other tells.
 
 **The test**: If you showed this to someone and said "AI made this," would they believe you immediately? If yes, that's the problem.
 
@@ -29,17 +29,23 @@ Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design sk
 - Do size, color, and position communicate importance correctly?
 - Is there visual competition between elements that should have different weights?
 
-### 3. Information Architecture
+### 3. Information Architecture & Cognitive Load
+> *Consult [cognitive-load](reference/cognitive-load.md) for the working memory rule and 8-item checklist*
 - Is the structure intuitive? Would a new user understand the organization?
 - Is related content grouped logically?
-- Are there too many choices at once? (cognitive overload)
+- Are there too many choices at once? Count visible options at each decision point — if >4, flag it
 - Is the navigation clear and predictable?
+- **Progressive disclosure**: Is complexity revealed only when needed, or dumped on the user upfront?
+- **Run the 8-item cognitive load checklist** from the reference. Report failure count: 0–1 = low (good), 2–3 = moderate, 4+ = critical.
 
-### 4. Emotional Resonance
+### 4. Emotional Journey
 - What emotion does this interface evoke? Is that intentional?
 - Does it match the brand personality?
-- Does it feel trustworthy, approachable, premium, playful—whatever it should feel?
+- Does it feel trustworthy, approachable, premium, playful — whatever it should feel?
 - Would the target user feel "this is for me"?
+- **Peak-end rule**: Is the most intense moment positive? Does the experience end well (confirmation, celebration, clear next step)?
+- **Emotional valleys**: Check for onboarding frustration, error cliffs, feature discovery gaps, or anxiety spikes at high-stakes moments (payment, delete, commit)
+- **Interventions at negative moments**: Are there design interventions where users are likely to feel frustrated or anxious? (progress indicators, reassurance copy, undo options, social proof)
 
 ### 5. Discoverability & Affordance
 - Are interactive elements obviously interactive?
@@ -63,7 +69,7 @@ Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design sk
 - Is color used to communicate, not just decorate?
 - Does the palette feel cohesive?
 - Are accent colors drawing attention to the right things?
-- Does it work for colorblind users? (not just technically—does meaning still come through?)
+- Does it work for colorblind users? (not just technically — does meaning still come through?)
 
 ### 9. States & Edge Cases
 - Empty states: Do they guide users toward action, or just say "nothing here"?
@@ -77,41 +83,117 @@ Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design sk
 - Are labels and buttons unambiguous?
 - Does error copy help users fix the problem?
 
-## Generate Critique Report
+## Phase 2: Present Findings
 
 Structure your feedback as a design director would:
 
+### Design Health Score
+> *Consult [heuristics-scoring](reference/heuristics-scoring.md)*
+
+Score each of Nielsen's 10 heuristics 0–4. Present as a table:
+
+| # | Heuristic | Score | Key Issue |
+|---|-----------|-------|-----------|
+| 1 | Visibility of System Status | ? | [specific finding or "—" if solid] |
+| 2 | Match System / Real World | ? | |
+| 3 | User Control and Freedom | ? | |
+| 4 | Consistency and Standards | ? | |
+| 5 | Error Prevention | ? | |
+| 6 | Recognition Rather Than Recall | ? | |
+| 7 | Flexibility and Efficiency | ? | |
+| 8 | Aesthetic and Minimalist Design | ? | |
+| 9 | Error Recovery | ? | |
+| 10 | Help and Documentation | ? | |
+| **Total** | | **??/40** | **[Rating band]** |
+
+Be honest with scores. A 4 means genuinely excellent. Most real interfaces score 20–32.
+
 ### Anti-Patterns Verdict
 **Start here.** Pass/fail: Does this look AI-generated? List specific tells from the skill's Anti-Patterns section. Be brutally honest.
 
 ### Overall Impression
-A brief gut reaction—what works, what doesn't, and the single biggest opportunity.
+A brief gut reaction — what works, what doesn't, and the single biggest opportunity.
 
 ### What's Working
-Highlight 2-3 things done well. Be specific about why they work.
+Highlight 2–3 things done well. Be specific about why they work.
 
 ### Priority Issues
-The 3-5 most impactful design problems, ordered by importance:
+The 3–5 most impactful design problems, ordered by importance.
 
-For each issue:
-- **What**: Name the problem clearly
+For each issue, tag with **P0–P3 severity** (consult [heuristics-scoring](reference/heuristics-scoring.md) for severity definitions):
+- **[P?] What**: Name the problem clearly
 - **Why it matters**: How this hurts users or undermines goals
 - **Fix**: What to do about it (be concrete)
-- **Command**: Which command to use (prefer: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive — or other installed skills you're sure exist)
+- **Suggested command**: Which command could address this (from: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive)
+
+### Persona Red Flags
+> *Consult [personas](reference/personas.md)*
+
+Auto-select 2–3 personas most relevant to this interface type (use the selection table in the reference). If `AGENTS.md` contains a `## Design Context` section from `teach-impeccable`, also generate 1–2 project-specific personas from the audience/brand info.
+
+For each selected persona, walk through the primary user action and list specific red flags found:
+
+**Alex (Power User)**: No keyboard shortcuts detected. Form requires 8 clicks for primary action. Forced modal onboarding. ⚠️ High abandonment risk.
+
+**Jordan (First-Timer)**: Icon-only nav in sidebar. Technical jargon in error messages ("404 Not Found"). No visible help. ⚠️ Will abandon at step 2.
+
+Be specific — name the exact elements and interactions that fail each persona. Don't write generic persona descriptions; write what broke for them.
 
 ### Minor Observations
 Quick notes on smaller issues worth addressing.
 
-### Questions to Consider
-Provocative questions that might unlock better solutions:
-- "What if the primary action were more prominent?"
-- "Does this need to feel this complex?"
-- "What would a confident version of this look like?"
-
 **Remember**:
-- Be direct—vague feedback wastes everyone's time
-- Be specific—"the submit button" not "some elements"
+- Be direct — vague feedback wastes everyone's time
+- Be specific — "the submit button" not "some elements"
 - Say what's wrong AND why it matters to users
 - Give concrete suggestions, not just "consider exploring..."
-- Prioritize ruthlessly—if everything is important, nothing is
-- Don't soften criticism—developers need honest feedback to ship great design
\ No newline at end of file
+- Prioritize ruthlessly — if everything is important, nothing is
+- Don't soften criticism — developers need honest feedback to ship great design
+
+## Phase 3: Ask the User
+
+**After presenting findings**, use targeted questions based on what was actually found. ask the user directly to clarify what you cannot infer. These answers will shape the action plan.
+
+Ask questions along these lines (adapt to the specific findings — do NOT ask generic questions):
+
+1. **Priority direction**: Based on the issues found, ask which category matters most to the user right now. For example: "I found problems with visual hierarchy, color usage, and information overload. Which area should we tackle first?" Offer the top 2–3 issue categories as options.
+
+2. **Design intent**: If the critique found a tonal mismatch, ask whether it was intentional. For example: "The interface feels clinical and corporate. Is that the intended tone, or should it feel warmer/bolder/more playful?" Offer 2–3 tonal directions as options based on what would fix the issues found.
+
+3. **Scope**: Ask how much the user wants to take on. For example: "I found N issues. Want to address everything, or focus on the top 3?" Offer scope options like "Top 3 only", "All issues", "Critical issues only".
+
+4. **Constraints** (optional — only ask if relevant): If the findings touch many areas, ask if anything is off-limits. For example: "Should any sections stay as-is?" This prevents the plan from touching things the user considers done.
+
+**Rules for questions**:
+- Every question must reference specific findings from Phase 2 — never ask generic "who is your audience?" questions
+- Keep it to 2–4 questions maximum — respect the user's time
+- Offer concrete options, not open-ended prompts
+- If findings are straightforward (e.g., only 1–2 clear issues), skip questions and go directly to Phase 4
+
+## Phase 4: Recommended Actions
+
+**After receiving the user's answers**, present a prioritized action summary reflecting the user's priorities and scope from Phase 3.
+
+### Action Summary
+
+List recommended commands in priority order, based on the user's answers:
+
+1. **`/command-name`** — Brief description of what to fix (specific context from critique findings)
+2. **`/command-name`** — Brief description (specific context)
+...
+
+**Rules for recommendations**:
+- Only recommend commands from: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive
+- Order by the user's stated priorities first, then by impact
+- Each item's description should carry enough context that the command knows what to focus on
+- Map each Priority Issue to the appropriate command
+- Skip commands that would address zero issues
+- If the user chose a limited scope, only include items within that scope
+- If the user marked areas as off-limits, exclude commands that would touch those areas
+- End with `/polish` as the final step if any fixes were recommended
+
+After presenting the summary, tell the user:
+
+> You can ask me to run these one at a time, all at once, or in any order you prefer.
+>
+> Re-run `/critique` after fixes to see your score improve.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/.pi/skills/critique/reference/cognitive-load.md b/.pi/skills/critique/reference/cognitive-load.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..313df166b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.pi/skills/critique/reference/cognitive-load.md
@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+# Cognitive Load Assessment
+
+Cognitive load is the total mental effort required to use an interface. Overloaded users make mistakes, get frustrated, and leave. This reference helps identify and fix cognitive overload.
+
+---
+
+## Three Types of Cognitive Load
+
+### Intrinsic Load — The Task Itself
+Complexity inherent to what the user is trying to do. You can't eliminate this, but you can structure it.
+
+**Manage it by**:
+- Breaking complex tasks into discrete steps
+- Providing scaffolding (templates, defaults, examples)
+- Progressive disclosure — show what's needed now, hide the rest
+- Grouping related decisions together
+
+### Extraneous Load — Bad Design
+Mental effort caused by poor design choices. **Eliminate this ruthlessly** — it's pure waste.
+
+**Common sources**:
+- Confusing navigation that requires mental mapping
+- Unclear labels that force users to guess meaning
+- Visual clutter competing for attention
+- Inconsistent patterns that prevent learning
+- Unnecessary steps between user intent and result
+
+### Germane Load — Learning Effort
+Mental effort spent building understanding. This is *good* cognitive load — it leads to mastery.
+
+**Support it by**:
+- Progressive disclosure that reveals complexity gradually
+- Consistent patterns that reward learning
+- Feedback that confirms correct understanding
+- Onboarding that teaches through action, not walls of text
+
+---
+
+## Cognitive Load Checklist
+
+Evaluate the interface against these 8 items:
+
+- [ ] **Single focus**: Can the user complete their primary task without distraction from competing elements?
+- [ ] **Chunking**: Is information presented in digestible groups (≤4 items per group)?
+- [ ] **Grouping**: Are related items visually grouped together (proximity, borders, shared background)?
+- [ ] **Visual hierarchy**: Is it immediately clear what's most important on the screen?
+- [ ] **One thing at a time**: Can the user focus on a single decision before moving to the next?
+- [ ] **Minimal choices**: Are decisions simplified (≤4 visible options at any decision point)?
+- [ ] **Working memory**: Does the user need to remember information from a previous screen to act on the current one?
+- [ ] **Progressive disclosure**: Is complexity revealed only when the user needs it?
+
+**Scoring**: Count the failed items. 0–1 failures = low cognitive load (good). 2–3 = moderate (address soon). 4+ = high cognitive load (critical fix needed).
+
+---
+
+## The Working Memory Rule
+
+**Humans can hold ≤4 items in working memory at once** (Miller's Law revised by Cowan, 2001).
+
+At any decision point, count the number of distinct options, actions, or pieces of information a user must simultaneously consider:
+- **≤4 items**: Within working memory limits — manageable
+- **5–7 items**: Pushing the boundary — consider grouping or progressive disclosure
+- **8+ items**: Overloaded — users will skip, misclick, or abandon
+
+**Practical applications**:
+- Navigation menus: ≤5 top-level items (group the rest under clear categories)
+- Form sections: ≤4 fields visible per group before a visual break
+- Action buttons: 1 primary, 1–2 secondary, group the rest in a menu
+- Dashboard widgets: ≤4 key metrics visible without scrolling
+- Pricing tiers: ≤3 options (more causes analysis paralysis)
+
+---
+
+## Common Cognitive Load Violations
+
+### 1. The Wall of Options
+**Problem**: Presenting 10+ choices at once with no hierarchy.
+**Fix**: Group into categories, highlight recommended, use progressive disclosure.
+
+### 2. The Memory Bridge
+**Problem**: User must remember info from step 1 to complete step 3.
+**Fix**: Keep relevant context visible, or repeat it where it's needed.
+
+### 3. The Hidden Navigation
+**Problem**: User must build a mental map of where things are.
+**Fix**: Always show current location (breadcrumbs, active states, progress indicators).
+
+### 4. The Jargon Barrier
+**Problem**: Technical or domain language forces translation effort.
+**Fix**: Use plain language. If domain terms are unavoidable, define them inline.
+
+### 5. The Visual Noise Floor
+**Problem**: Every element has the same visual weight — nothing stands out.
+**Fix**: Establish clear hierarchy: one primary element, 2–3 secondary, everything else muted.
+
+### 6. The Inconsistent Pattern
+**Problem**: Similar actions work differently in different places.
+**Fix**: Standardize interaction patterns. Same type of action = same type of UI.
+
+### 7. The Multi-Task Demand
+**Problem**: Interface requires processing multiple simultaneous inputs (reading + deciding + navigating).
+**Fix**: Sequence the steps. Let the user do one thing at a time.
+
+### 8. The Context Switch
+**Problem**: User must jump between screens/tabs/modals to gather info for a single decision.
+**Fix**: Co-locate the information needed for each decision. Reduce back-and-forth.
diff --git a/.pi/skills/critique/reference/heuristics-scoring.md b/.pi/skills/critique/reference/heuristics-scoring.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..fd5b1b08b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.pi/skills/critique/reference/heuristics-scoring.md
@@ -0,0 +1,234 @@
+# Heuristics Scoring Guide
+
+Score each of Nielsen's 10 Usability Heuristics on a 0–4 scale. Be honest — a 4 means genuinely excellent, not "good enough."
+
+## Nielsen's 10 Heuristics
+
+### 1. Visibility of System Status
+
+Keep users informed about what's happening through timely, appropriate feedback.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Loading indicators during async operations
+- Confirmation of user actions (save, submit, delete)
+- Progress indicators for multi-step processes
+- Current location in navigation (breadcrumbs, active states)
+- Form validation feedback (inline, not just on submit)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | No feedback — user is guessing what happened |
+| 1 | Rare feedback — most actions produce no visible response |
+| 2 | Partial — some states communicated, major gaps remain |
+| 3 | Good — most operations give clear feedback, minor gaps |
+| 4 | Excellent — every action confirms, progress is always visible |
+
+### 2. Match Between System and Real World
+
+Speak the user's language. Follow real-world conventions. Information appears in natural, logical order.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Familiar terminology (no unexplained jargon)
+- Logical information order matching user expectations
+- Recognizable icons and metaphors
+- Domain-appropriate language for the target audience
+- Natural reading flow (left-to-right, top-to-bottom priority)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Pure tech jargon, alien to users |
+| 1 | Mostly confusing — requires domain expertise to navigate |
+| 2 | Mixed — some plain language, some jargon leaks through |
+| 3 | Mostly natural — occasional term needs context |
+| 4 | Speaks the user's language fluently throughout |
+
+### 3. User Control and Freedom
+
+Users need a clear "emergency exit" from unwanted states without extended dialogue.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Undo/redo functionality
+- Cancel buttons on forms and modals
+- Clear navigation back to safety (home, previous)
+- Easy way to clear filters, search, selections
+- Escape from long or multi-step processes
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Users get trapped — no way out without refreshing |
+| 1 | Difficult exits — must find obscure paths to escape |
+| 2 | Some exits — main flows have escape, edge cases don't |
+| 3 | Good control — users can exit and undo most actions |
+| 4 | Full control — undo, cancel, back, and escape everywhere |
+
+### 4. Consistency and Standards
+
+Users shouldn't wonder whether different words, situations, or actions mean the same thing.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Consistent terminology throughout the interface
+- Same actions produce same results everywhere
+- Platform conventions followed (standard UI patterns)
+- Visual consistency (colors, typography, spacing, components)
+- Consistent interaction patterns (same gesture = same behavior)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Inconsistent everywhere — feels like different products stitched together |
+| 1 | Many inconsistencies — similar things look/behave differently |
+| 2 | Partially consistent — main flows match, details diverge |
+| 3 | Mostly consistent — occasional deviation, nothing confusing |
+| 4 | Fully consistent — cohesive system, predictable behavior |
+
+### 5. Error Prevention
+
+Better than good error messages is a design that prevents problems in the first place.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Confirmation before destructive actions (delete, overwrite)
+- Constraints preventing invalid input (date pickers, dropdowns)
+- Smart defaults that reduce errors
+- Clear labels that prevent misunderstanding
+- Autosave and draft recovery
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Errors easy to make — no guardrails anywhere |
+| 1 | Few safeguards — some inputs validated, most aren't |
+| 2 | Partial prevention — common errors caught, edge cases slip |
+| 3 | Good prevention — most error paths blocked proactively |
+| 4 | Excellent — errors nearly impossible through smart constraints |
+
+### 6. Recognition Rather Than Recall
+
+Minimize memory load. Make objects, actions, and options visible or easily retrievable.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Visible options (not buried in hidden menus)
+- Contextual help when needed (tooltips, inline hints)
+- Recent items and history
+- Autocomplete and suggestions
+- Labels on icons (not icon-only navigation)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Heavy memorization — users must remember paths and commands |
+| 1 | Mostly recall — many hidden features, few visible cues |
+| 2 | Some aids — main actions visible, secondary features hidden |
+| 3 | Good recognition — most things discoverable, few memory demands |
+| 4 | Everything discoverable — users never need to memorize |
+
+### 7. Flexibility and Efficiency of Use
+
+Accelerators — invisible to novices — speed up expert interaction.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Keyboard shortcuts for common actions
+- Customizable interface elements
+- Recent items and favorites
+- Bulk/batch actions
+- Power user features that don't complicate the basics
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | One rigid path — no shortcuts or alternatives |
+| 1 | Limited flexibility — few alternatives to the main path |
+| 2 | Some shortcuts — basic keyboard support, limited bulk actions |
+| 3 | Good accelerators — keyboard nav, some customization |
+| 4 | Highly flexible — multiple paths, power features, customizable |
+
+### 8. Aesthetic and Minimalist Design
+
+Interfaces should not contain irrelevant or rarely needed information. Every element should serve a purpose.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Only necessary information visible at each step
+- Clear visual hierarchy directing attention
+- Purposeful use of color and emphasis
+- No decorative clutter competing for attention
+- Focused, uncluttered layouts
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Overwhelming — everything competes for attention equally |
+| 1 | Cluttered — too much noise, hard to find what matters |
+| 2 | Some clutter — main content clear, periphery noisy |
+| 3 | Mostly clean — focused design, minor visual noise |
+| 4 | Perfectly minimal — every element earns its pixel |
+
+### 9. Help Users Recognize, Diagnose, and Recover from Errors
+
+Error messages should use plain language, precisely indicate the problem, and constructively suggest a solution.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Plain language error messages (no error codes for users)
+- Specific problem identification ("Email is missing @" not "Invalid input")
+- Actionable recovery suggestions
+- Errors displayed near the source of the problem
+- Non-blocking error handling (don't wipe the form)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Cryptic errors — codes, jargon, or no message at all |
+| 1 | Vague errors — "Something went wrong" with no guidance |
+| 2 | Clear but unhelpful — names the problem but not the fix |
+| 3 | Clear with suggestions — identifies problem and offers next steps |
+| 4 | Perfect recovery — pinpoints issue, suggests fix, preserves user work |
+
+### 10. Help and Documentation
+
+Even if the system is usable without docs, help should be easy to find, task-focused, and concise.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Searchable help or documentation
+- Contextual help (tooltips, inline hints, guided tours)
+- Task-focused organization (not feature-organized)
+- Concise, scannable content
+- Easy access without leaving current context
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | No help available anywhere |
+| 1 | Help exists but hard to find or irrelevant |
+| 2 | Basic help — FAQ or docs exist, not contextual |
+| 3 | Good documentation — searchable, mostly task-focused |
+| 4 | Excellent contextual help — right info at the right moment |
+
+---
+
+## Score Summary
+
+**Total possible**: 40 points (10 heuristics × 4 max)
+
+| Score Range | Rating | What It Means |
+|-------------|--------|---------------|
+| 36–40 | Excellent | Minor polish only — ship it |
+| 28–35 | Good | Address weak areas, solid foundation |
+| 20–27 | Acceptable | Significant improvements needed before users are happy |
+| 12–19 | Poor | Major UX overhaul required — core experience broken |
+| 0–11 | Critical | Redesign needed — unusable in current state |
+
+---
+
+## Issue Severity (P0–P3)
+
+Tag each individual issue found during scoring with a priority level:
+
+| Priority | Name | Description | Action |
+|----------|------|-------------|--------|
+| **P0** | Blocking | Prevents task completion entirely | Fix immediately — this is a showstopper |
+| **P1** | Major | Causes significant difficulty or confusion | Fix before release |
+| **P2** | Minor | Annoyance, but workaround exists | Fix in next pass |
+| **P3** | Polish | Nice-to-fix, no real user impact | Fix if time permits |
+
+**Tip**: If you're unsure between two levels, ask: "Would a user contact support about this?" If yes, it's at least P1.
diff --git a/.pi/skills/critique/reference/personas.md b/.pi/skills/critique/reference/personas.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..2d0f9cbf3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.pi/skills/critique/reference/personas.md
@@ -0,0 +1,178 @@
+# Persona-Based Design Testing
+
+Test the interface through the eyes of 5 distinct user archetypes. Each persona exposes different failure modes that a single "design director" perspective would miss.
+
+**How to use**: Select 2–3 personas most relevant to the interface being critiqued. Walk through the primary user action as each persona. Report specific red flags — not generic concerns.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Impatient Power User — "Alex"
+
+**Profile**: Expert with similar products. Expects efficiency, hates hand-holding. Will find shortcuts or leave.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Skips all onboarding and instructions
+- Looks for keyboard shortcuts immediately
+- Tries to bulk-select, batch-edit, and automate
+- Gets frustrated by required steps that feel unnecessary
+- Abandons if anything feels slow or patronizing
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Can Alex complete the core task in under 60 seconds?
+- Are there keyboard shortcuts for common actions?
+- Can onboarding be skipped entirely?
+- Do modals have keyboard dismiss (Esc)?
+- Is there a "power user" path (shortcuts, bulk actions)?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Forced tutorials or unskippable onboarding
+- No keyboard navigation for primary actions
+- Slow animations that can't be skipped
+- One-item-at-a-time workflows where batch would be natural
+- Redundant confirmation steps for low-risk actions
+
+---
+
+## 2. Confused First-Timer — "Jordan"
+
+**Profile**: Never used this type of product. Needs guidance at every step. Will abandon rather than figure it out.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Reads all instructions carefully
+- Hesitates before clicking anything unfamiliar
+- Looks for help or support constantly
+- Misunderstands jargon and abbreviations
+- Takes the most literal interpretation of any label
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Is the first action obviously clear within 5 seconds?
+- Are all icons labeled with text?
+- Is there contextual help at decision points?
+- Does terminology assume prior knowledge?
+- Is there a clear "back" or "undo" at every step?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Icon-only navigation with no labels
+- Technical jargon without explanation
+- No visible help option or guidance
+- Ambiguous next steps after completing an action
+- No confirmation that an action succeeded
+
+---
+
+## 3. Accessibility-Dependent User — "Sam"
+
+**Profile**: Uses screen reader (VoiceOver/NVDA), keyboard-only navigation. May have low vision, motor impairment, or cognitive differences.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Tabs through the interface linearly
+- Relies on ARIA labels and heading structure
+- Cannot see hover states or visual-only indicators
+- Needs adequate color contrast (4.5:1 minimum)
+- May use browser zoom up to 200%
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Can the entire primary flow be completed keyboard-only?
+- Are all interactive elements focusable with visible focus indicators?
+- Do images have meaningful alt text?
+- Is color contrast WCAG AA compliant (4.5:1 for text)?
+- Does the screen reader announce state changes (loading, success, errors)?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Click-only interactions with no keyboard alternative
+- Missing or invisible focus indicators
+- Meaning conveyed by color alone (red = error, green = success)
+- Unlabeled form fields or buttons
+- Time-limited actions without extension option
+- Custom components that break screen reader flow
+
+---
+
+## 4. Deliberate Stress Tester — "Riley"
+
+**Profile**: Methodical user who pushes interfaces beyond the happy path. Tests edge cases, tries unexpected inputs, and probes for gaps in the experience.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Tests edge cases intentionally (empty states, long strings, special characters)
+- Submits forms with unexpected data (emoji, RTL text, very long values)
+- Tries to break workflows by navigating backwards, refreshing mid-flow, or opening in multiple tabs
+- Looks for inconsistencies between what the UI promises and what actually happens
+- Documents problems methodically
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- What happens at the edges (0 items, 1000 items, very long text)?
+- Do error states recover gracefully or leave the UI in a broken state?
+- What happens on refresh mid-workflow? Is state preserved?
+- Are there features that appear to work but produce broken results?
+- How does the UI handle unexpected input (emoji, special chars, paste from Excel)?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Features that appear to work but silently fail or produce wrong results
+- Error handling that exposes technical details or leaves UI in a broken state
+- Empty states that show nothing useful ("No results" with no guidance)
+- Workflows that lose user data on refresh or navigation
+- Inconsistent behavior between similar interactions in different parts of the UI
+
+---
+
+## 5. Distracted Mobile User — "Casey"
+
+**Profile**: Using phone one-handed on the go. Frequently interrupted. Possibly on a slow connection.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Uses thumb only — prefers bottom-of-screen actions
+- Gets interrupted mid-flow and returns later
+- Switches between apps frequently
+- Has limited attention span and low patience
+- Types as little as possible, prefers taps and selections
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Are primary actions in the thumb zone (bottom half of screen)?
+- Is state preserved if the user leaves and returns?
+- Does it work on slow connections (3G)?
+- Can forms leverage autocomplete and smart defaults?
+- Are touch targets at least 44×44pt?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Important actions positioned at the top of the screen (unreachable by thumb)
+- No state persistence — progress lost on tab switch or interruption
+- Large text inputs required where selection would work
+- Heavy assets loading on every page (no lazy loading)
+- Tiny tap targets or targets too close together
+
+---
+
+## Selecting Personas
+
+Choose personas based on the interface type:
+
+| Interface Type | Primary Personas | Why |
+|---------------|-----------------|-----|
+| Landing page / marketing | Jordan, Riley, Casey | First impressions, trust, mobile |
+| Dashboard / admin | Alex, Sam | Power users, accessibility |
+| E-commerce / checkout | Casey, Riley, Jordan | Mobile, edge cases, clarity |
+| Onboarding flow | Jordan, Casey | Confusion, interruption |
+| Data-heavy / analytics | Alex, Sam | Efficiency, keyboard nav |
+| Form-heavy / wizard | Jordan, Sam, Casey | Clarity, accessibility, mobile |
+
+---
+
+## Project-Specific Personas
+
+If `AGENTS.md` contains a `## Design Context` section (generated by `teach-impeccable`), derive 1–2 additional personas from the audience and brand information:
+
+1. Read the target audience description
+2. Identify the primary user archetype not covered by the 5 predefined personas
+3. Create a persona following this template:
+
+```
+### [Role] — "[Name]"
+
+**Profile**: [2-3 key characteristics derived from Design Context]
+
+**Behaviors**: [3-4 specific behaviors based on the described audience]
+
+**Red Flags**: [3-4 things that would alienate this specific user type]
+```
+
+Only generate project-specific personas when real Design Context data is available. Don't invent audience details — use the 5 predefined personas when no context exists.
diff --git a/.trae-cn/skills/audit/SKILL.md b/.trae-cn/skills/audit/SKILL.md
index b0cee9eaa..1debe043e 100644
--- a/.trae-cn/skills/audit/SKILL.md
+++ b/.trae-cn/skills/audit/SKILL.md
@@ -1,125 +1,147 @@
 ---
 name: audit
-description: Perform a comprehensive audit of interface quality across accessibility, performance, theming, and responsive design. Generates a prioritized report with severity ratings. Use when the user wants a design review, accessibility check, quality audit, or a full list of UI issues to fix.
+description: Run technical quality checks across accessibility, performance, theming, responsive design, and anti-patterns. Generates a scored report with P0-P3 severity ratings and actionable plan. Use when the user wants an accessibility check, performance audit, or technical quality review.
 user-invocable: true
 argument-hint: "[area (feature, page, component...)]"
 ---
 
-Run systematic quality checks and generate a comprehensive audit report with prioritized issues and actionable recommendations. Don't fix issues - document them for other commands to address.
+## MANDATORY PREPARATION
 
-**First**: Invoke /frontend-design for design principles and anti-patterns.
+Invoke /frontend-design — it contains design principles, anti-patterns, and the **Context Gathering Protocol**. Follow the protocol before proceeding — if no design context exists yet, you MUST run /teach-impeccable first.
+
+---
+
+Run systematic **technical** quality checks and generate a comprehensive report. Don't fix issues — document them for other commands to address.
+
+This is a code-level audit, not a design critique. Check what's measurable and verifiable in the implementation.
 
 ## Diagnostic Scan
 
-Run comprehensive checks across multiple dimensions:
+Run comprehensive checks across 5 dimensions. Score each dimension 0-4 using the criteria below.
 
-1. **Accessibility (A11y)** - Check for:
-   - **Contrast issues**: Text contrast ratios < 4.5:1 (or 7:1 for AAA)
-   - **Missing ARIA**: Interactive elements without proper roles, labels, or states
-   - **Keyboard navigation**: Missing focus indicators, illogical tab order, keyboard traps
-   - **Semantic HTML**: Improper heading hierarchy, missing landmarks, divs instead of buttons
-   - **Alt text**: Missing or poor image descriptions
-   - **Form issues**: Inputs without labels, poor error messaging, missing required indicators
+### 1. Accessibility (A11y)
 
-2. **Performance** - Check for:
-   - **Layout thrashing**: Reading/writing layout properties in loops
-   - **Expensive animations**: Animating layout properties (width, height, top, left) instead of transform/opacity
-   - **Missing optimization**: Images without lazy loading, unoptimized assets, missing will-change
-   - **Bundle size**: Unnecessary imports, unused dependencies
-   - **Render performance**: Unnecessary re-renders, missing memoization
+**Check for**:
+- **Contrast issues**: Text contrast ratios < 4.5:1 (or 7:1 for AAA)
+- **Missing ARIA**: Interactive elements without proper roles, labels, or states
+- **Keyboard navigation**: Missing focus indicators, illogical tab order, keyboard traps
+- **Semantic HTML**: Improper heading hierarchy, missing landmarks, divs instead of buttons
+- **Alt text**: Missing or poor image descriptions
+- **Form issues**: Inputs without labels, poor error messaging, missing required indicators
 
-3. **Theming** - Check for:
-   - **Hard-coded colors**: Colors not using design tokens
-   - **Broken dark mode**: Missing dark mode variants, poor contrast in dark theme
-   - **Inconsistent tokens**: Using wrong tokens, mixing token types
-   - **Theme switching issues**: Values that don't update on theme change
+**Score 0-4**: 0=Inaccessible (fails WCAG A), 1=Major gaps (few ARIA labels, no keyboard nav), 2=Partial (some a11y effort, significant gaps), 3=Good (WCAG AA mostly met, minor gaps), 4=Excellent (WCAG AA fully met, approaches AAA)
 
-4. **Responsive Design** - Check for:
-   - **Fixed widths**: Hard-coded widths that break on mobile
-   - **Touch targets**: Interactive elements < 44x44px
-   - **Horizontal scroll**: Content overflow on narrow viewports
-   - **Text scaling**: Layouts that break when text size increases
-   - **Missing breakpoints**: No mobile/tablet variants
+### 2. Performance
 
-5. **Anti-Patterns (CRITICAL)** - Check against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill. Look for AI slop tells (AI color palette, gradient text, glassmorphism, hero metrics, card grids, generic fonts) and general design anti-patterns (gray on color, nested cards, bounce easing, redundant copy).
+**Check for**:
+- **Layout thrashing**: Reading/writing layout properties in loops
+- **Expensive animations**: Animating layout properties (width, height, top, left) instead of transform/opacity
+- **Missing optimization**: Images without lazy loading, unoptimized assets, missing will-change
+- **Bundle size**: Unnecessary imports, unused dependencies
+- **Render performance**: Unnecessary re-renders, missing memoization
 
-**CRITICAL**: This is an audit, not a fix. Document issues thoroughly with clear explanations of impact. Use other commands (normalize, optimize, harden, etc.) to fix issues after audit.
+**Score 0-4**: 0=Severe issues (layout thrash, unoptimized everything), 1=Major problems (no lazy loading, expensive animations), 2=Partial (some optimization, gaps remain), 3=Good (mostly optimized, minor improvements possible), 4=Excellent (fast, lean, well-optimized)
 
-## Generate Comprehensive Report
+### 3. Theming
 
-Create a detailed audit report with the following structure:
+**Check for**:
+- **Hard-coded colors**: Colors not using design tokens
+- **Broken dark mode**: Missing dark mode variants, poor contrast in dark theme
+- **Inconsistent tokens**: Using wrong tokens, mixing token types
+- **Theme switching issues**: Values that don't update on theme change
+
+**Score 0-4**: 0=No theming (hard-coded everything), 1=Minimal tokens (mostly hard-coded), 2=Partial (tokens exist but inconsistently used), 3=Good (tokens used, minor hard-coded values), 4=Excellent (full token system, dark mode works perfectly)
+
+### 4. Responsive Design
+
+**Check for**:
+- **Fixed widths**: Hard-coded widths that break on mobile
+- **Touch targets**: Interactive elements < 44x44px
+- **Horizontal scroll**: Content overflow on narrow viewports
+- **Text scaling**: Layouts that break when text size increases
+- **Missing breakpoints**: No mobile/tablet variants
+
+**Score 0-4**: 0=Desktop-only (breaks on mobile), 1=Major issues (some breakpoints, many failures), 2=Partial (works on mobile, rough edges), 3=Good (responsive, minor touch target or overflow issues), 4=Excellent (fluid, all viewports, proper touch targets)
+
+### 5. Anti-Patterns (CRITICAL)
+
+Check against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill. Look for AI slop tells (AI color palette, gradient text, glassmorphism, hero metrics, card grids, generic fonts) and general design anti-patterns (gray on color, nested cards, bounce easing, redundant copy).
+
+**Score 0-4**: 0=AI slop gallery (5+ tells), 1=Heavy AI aesthetic (3-4 tells), 2=Some tells (1-2 noticeable), 3=Mostly clean (subtle issues only), 4=No AI tells (distinctive, intentional design)
+
+## Generate Report
+
+### Audit Health Score
+
+| # | Dimension | Score | Key Finding |
+|---|-----------|-------|-------------|
+| 1 | Accessibility | ? | [most critical a11y issue or "--"] |
+| 2 | Performance | ? | |
+| 3 | Responsive Design | ? | |
+| 4 | Theming | ? | |
+| 5 | Anti-Patterns | ? | |
+| **Total** | | **??/20** | **[Rating band]** |
+
+**Rating bands**: 18-20 Excellent (minor polish), 14-17 Good (address weak dimensions), 10-13 Acceptable (significant work needed), 6-9 Poor (major overhaul), 0-5 Critical (fundamental issues)
 
 ### Anti-Patterns Verdict
-**Start here.** Pass/fail: Does this look AI-generated? List specific tells from the skill's Anti-Patterns section. Be brutally honest.
+**Start here.** Pass/fail: Does this look AI-generated? List specific tells. Be brutally honest.
 
 ### Executive Summary
-- Total issues found (count by severity)
-- Most critical issues (top 3-5)
-- Overall quality score (if applicable)
+- Audit Health Score: **??/20** ([rating band])
+- Total issues found (count by severity: P0/P1/P2/P3)
+- Top 3-5 critical issues
 - Recommended next steps
 
 ### Detailed Findings by Severity
 
+Tag every issue with **P0-P3 severity**:
+- **P0 Blocking**: Prevents task completion — fix immediately
+- **P1 Major**: Significant difficulty or WCAG AA violation — fix before release
+- **P2 Minor**: Annoyance, workaround exists — fix in next pass
+- **P3 Polish**: Nice-to-fix, no real user impact — fix if time permits
+
 For each issue, document:
-- **Location**: Where the issue occurs (component, file, line)
-- **Severity**: Critical / High / Medium / Low
-- **Category**: Accessibility / Performance / Theming / Responsive
-- **Description**: What the issue is
+- **[P?] Issue name**
+- **Location**: Component, file, line
+- **Category**: Accessibility / Performance / Theming / Responsive / Anti-Pattern
 - **Impact**: How it affects users
 - **WCAG/Standard**: Which standard it violates (if applicable)
 - **Recommendation**: How to fix it
-- **Suggested command**: Which command to use (prefer: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive — or other installed skills you're sure exist)
-
-#### Critical Issues
-[Issues that block core functionality or violate WCAG A]
-
-#### High-Severity Issues  
-[Significant usability/accessibility impact, WCAG AA violations]
-
-#### Medium-Severity Issues
-[Quality issues, WCAG AAA violations, performance concerns]
-
-#### Low-Severity Issues
-[Minor inconsistencies, optimization opportunities]
+- **Suggested command**: Which command to use (prefer: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive)
 
 ### Patterns & Systemic Issues
 
-Identify recurring problems:
+Identify recurring problems that indicate systemic gaps rather than one-off mistakes:
 - "Hard-coded colors appear in 15+ components, should use design tokens"
 - "Touch targets consistently too small (<44px) throughout mobile experience"
-- "Missing focus indicators on all custom interactive components"
 
 ### Positive Findings
 
-Note what's working well:
-- Good practices to maintain
-- Exemplary implementations to replicate elsewhere
+Note what's working well — good practices to maintain and replicate.
 
-### Recommendations by Priority
+## Recommended Actions
 
-Create actionable plan:
-1. **Immediate**: Critical blockers to fix first
-2. **Short-term**: High-severity issues (this sprint)
-3. **Medium-term**: Quality improvements (next sprint)
-4. **Long-term**: Nice-to-haves and optimizations
+List recommended commands in priority order (P0 first, then P1, then P2):
 
-### Suggested Commands for Fixes
+1. **[P?] `/command-name`** — Brief description (specific context from audit findings)
+2. **[P?] `/command-name`** — Brief description (specific context)
 
-Map issues to available commands. Prefer these: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive. You may also suggest other installed skills you're sure exist, but never invent commands.
+**Rules**: Only recommend commands from: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive. Map findings to the most appropriate command. End with `/polish` as the final step if any fixes were recommended.
 
-Examples:
-- "Use `/normalize` to align with design system (addresses N theming issues)"
-- "Use `/optimize` to improve performance (addresses N performance issues)"
-- "Use `/harden` to improve resilience (addresses N edge cases)"
+After presenting the summary, tell the user:
 
-**IMPORTANT**: Be thorough but actionable. Too many low-priority issues creates noise. Focus on what actually matters.
+> You can ask me to run these one at a time, all at once, or in any order you prefer.
+>
+> Re-run `/audit` after fixes to see your score improve.
+
+**IMPORTANT**: Be thorough but actionable. Too many P3 issues creates noise. Focus on what actually matters.
 
 **NEVER**:
 - Report issues without explaining impact (why does this matter?)
-- Mix severity levels inconsistently
-- Skip positive findings (celebrate what works)
 - Provide generic recommendations (be specific and actionable)
-- Forget to prioritize (everything can't be critical)
+- Skip positive findings (celebrate what works)
+- Forget to prioritize (everything can't be P0)
 - Report false positives without verification
 
-Remember: You're a quality auditor with exceptional attention to detail. Document systematically, prioritize ruthlessly, and provide clear paths to improvement. A good audit makes fixing easy.
\ No newline at end of file
+Remember: You're a technical quality auditor. Document systematically, prioritize ruthlessly, cite specific code locations, and provide clear paths to improvement.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/.trae-cn/skills/critique/SKILL.md b/.trae-cn/skills/critique/SKILL.md
index 29806cd81..8a409115a 100644
--- a/.trae-cn/skills/critique/SKILL.md
+++ b/.trae-cn/skills/critique/SKILL.md
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 name: critique
-description: Evaluate design effectiveness from a UX perspective. Assesses visual hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, and overall design quality with actionable feedback. Use when the user asks to review, critique, evaluate, audit, or give feedback on a design, UI, or component.
+description: Evaluate design from a UX perspective, assessing visual hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, cognitive load, and overall quality with quantitative scoring, persona-based testing, and actionable feedback. Use when the user asks to review, critique, evaluate, or give feedback on a design or component.
 user-invocable: true
 argument-hint: "[area (feature, page, component...)]"
 ---
@@ -11,9 +11,9 @@ Invoke /frontend-design — it contains design principles, anti-patterns, and th
 
 ---
 
-Conduct a holistic design critique, evaluating whether the interface actually works—not just technically, but as a designed experience. Think like a design director giving feedback.
+Conduct a holistic design critique, evaluating whether the interface actually works — not just technically, but as a designed experience. Think like a design director giving feedback.
 
-## Design Critique
+## Phase 1: Design Critique
 
 Evaluate the interface across these dimensions:
 
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ Evaluate the interface across these dimensions:
 
 **This is the most important check.** Does this look like every other AI-generated interface from 2024-2025?
 
-Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill—they are the fingerprints of AI-generated work. Check for the AI color palette, gradient text, dark mode with glowing accents, glassmorphism, hero metric layouts, identical card grids, generic fonts, and all other tells.
+Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill — they are the fingerprints of AI-generated work. Check for the AI color palette, gradient text, dark mode with glowing accents, glassmorphism, hero metric layouts, identical card grids, generic fonts, and all other tells.
 
 **The test**: If you showed this to someone and said "AI made this," would they believe you immediately? If yes, that's the problem.
 
@@ -31,17 +31,23 @@ Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design sk
 - Do size, color, and position communicate importance correctly?
 - Is there visual competition between elements that should have different weights?
 
-### 3. Information Architecture
+### 3. Information Architecture & Cognitive Load
+> *Consult [cognitive-load](reference/cognitive-load.md) for the working memory rule and 8-item checklist*
 - Is the structure intuitive? Would a new user understand the organization?
 - Is related content grouped logically?
-- Are there too many choices at once? (cognitive overload)
+- Are there too many choices at once? Count visible options at each decision point — if >4, flag it
 - Is the navigation clear and predictable?
+- **Progressive disclosure**: Is complexity revealed only when needed, or dumped on the user upfront?
+- **Run the 8-item cognitive load checklist** from the reference. Report failure count: 0–1 = low (good), 2–3 = moderate, 4+ = critical.
 
-### 4. Emotional Resonance
+### 4. Emotional Journey
 - What emotion does this interface evoke? Is that intentional?
 - Does it match the brand personality?
-- Does it feel trustworthy, approachable, premium, playful—whatever it should feel?
+- Does it feel trustworthy, approachable, premium, playful — whatever it should feel?
 - Would the target user feel "this is for me"?
+- **Peak-end rule**: Is the most intense moment positive? Does the experience end well (confirmation, celebration, clear next step)?
+- **Emotional valleys**: Check for onboarding frustration, error cliffs, feature discovery gaps, or anxiety spikes at high-stakes moments (payment, delete, commit)
+- **Interventions at negative moments**: Are there design interventions where users are likely to feel frustrated or anxious? (progress indicators, reassurance copy, undo options, social proof)
 
 ### 5. Discoverability & Affordance
 - Are interactive elements obviously interactive?
@@ -65,7 +71,7 @@ Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design sk
 - Is color used to communicate, not just decorate?
 - Does the palette feel cohesive?
 - Are accent colors drawing attention to the right things?
-- Does it work for colorblind users? (not just technically—does meaning still come through?)
+- Does it work for colorblind users? (not just technically — does meaning still come through?)
 
 ### 9. States & Edge Cases
 - Empty states: Do they guide users toward action, or just say "nothing here"?
@@ -79,41 +85,117 @@ Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design sk
 - Are labels and buttons unambiguous?
 - Does error copy help users fix the problem?
 
-## Generate Critique Report
+## Phase 2: Present Findings
 
 Structure your feedback as a design director would:
 
+### Design Health Score
+> *Consult [heuristics-scoring](reference/heuristics-scoring.md)*
+
+Score each of Nielsen's 10 heuristics 0–4. Present as a table:
+
+| # | Heuristic | Score | Key Issue |
+|---|-----------|-------|-----------|
+| 1 | Visibility of System Status | ? | [specific finding or "—" if solid] |
+| 2 | Match System / Real World | ? | |
+| 3 | User Control and Freedom | ? | |
+| 4 | Consistency and Standards | ? | |
+| 5 | Error Prevention | ? | |
+| 6 | Recognition Rather Than Recall | ? | |
+| 7 | Flexibility and Efficiency | ? | |
+| 8 | Aesthetic and Minimalist Design | ? | |
+| 9 | Error Recovery | ? | |
+| 10 | Help and Documentation | ? | |
+| **Total** | | **??/40** | **[Rating band]** |
+
+Be honest with scores. A 4 means genuinely excellent. Most real interfaces score 20–32.
+
 ### Anti-Patterns Verdict
 **Start here.** Pass/fail: Does this look AI-generated? List specific tells from the skill's Anti-Patterns section. Be brutally honest.
 
 ### Overall Impression
-A brief gut reaction—what works, what doesn't, and the single biggest opportunity.
+A brief gut reaction — what works, what doesn't, and the single biggest opportunity.
 
 ### What's Working
-Highlight 2-3 things done well. Be specific about why they work.
+Highlight 2–3 things done well. Be specific about why they work.
 
 ### Priority Issues
-The 3-5 most impactful design problems, ordered by importance:
+The 3–5 most impactful design problems, ordered by importance.
 
-For each issue:
-- **What**: Name the problem clearly
+For each issue, tag with **P0–P3 severity** (consult [heuristics-scoring](reference/heuristics-scoring.md) for severity definitions):
+- **[P?] What**: Name the problem clearly
 - **Why it matters**: How this hurts users or undermines goals
 - **Fix**: What to do about it (be concrete)
-- **Command**: Which command to use (prefer: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive — or other installed skills you're sure exist)
+- **Suggested command**: Which command could address this (from: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive)
+
+### Persona Red Flags
+> *Consult [personas](reference/personas.md)*
+
+Auto-select 2–3 personas most relevant to this interface type (use the selection table in the reference). If `RULES.md` contains a `## Design Context` section from `teach-impeccable`, also generate 1–2 project-specific personas from the audience/brand info.
+
+For each selected persona, walk through the primary user action and list specific red flags found:
+
+**Alex (Power User)**: No keyboard shortcuts detected. Form requires 8 clicks for primary action. Forced modal onboarding. ⚠️ High abandonment risk.
+
+**Jordan (First-Timer)**: Icon-only nav in sidebar. Technical jargon in error messages ("404 Not Found"). No visible help. ⚠️ Will abandon at step 2.
+
+Be specific — name the exact elements and interactions that fail each persona. Don't write generic persona descriptions; write what broke for them.
 
 ### Minor Observations
 Quick notes on smaller issues worth addressing.
 
-### Questions to Consider
-Provocative questions that might unlock better solutions:
-- "What if the primary action were more prominent?"
-- "Does this need to feel this complex?"
-- "What would a confident version of this look like?"
-
 **Remember**:
-- Be direct—vague feedback wastes everyone's time
-- Be specific—"the submit button" not "some elements"
+- Be direct — vague feedback wastes everyone's time
+- Be specific — "the submit button" not "some elements"
 - Say what's wrong AND why it matters to users
 - Give concrete suggestions, not just "consider exploring..."
-- Prioritize ruthlessly—if everything is important, nothing is
-- Don't soften criticism—developers need honest feedback to ship great design
\ No newline at end of file
+- Prioritize ruthlessly — if everything is important, nothing is
+- Don't soften criticism — developers need honest feedback to ship great design
+
+## Phase 3: Ask the User
+
+**After presenting findings**, use targeted questions based on what was actually found. ask the user directly to clarify what you cannot infer. These answers will shape the action plan.
+
+Ask questions along these lines (adapt to the specific findings — do NOT ask generic questions):
+
+1. **Priority direction**: Based on the issues found, ask which category matters most to the user right now. For example: "I found problems with visual hierarchy, color usage, and information overload. Which area should we tackle first?" Offer the top 2–3 issue categories as options.
+
+2. **Design intent**: If the critique found a tonal mismatch, ask whether it was intentional. For example: "The interface feels clinical and corporate. Is that the intended tone, or should it feel warmer/bolder/more playful?" Offer 2–3 tonal directions as options based on what would fix the issues found.
+
+3. **Scope**: Ask how much the user wants to take on. For example: "I found N issues. Want to address everything, or focus on the top 3?" Offer scope options like "Top 3 only", "All issues", "Critical issues only".
+
+4. **Constraints** (optional — only ask if relevant): If the findings touch many areas, ask if anything is off-limits. For example: "Should any sections stay as-is?" This prevents the plan from touching things the user considers done.
+
+**Rules for questions**:
+- Every question must reference specific findings from Phase 2 — never ask generic "who is your audience?" questions
+- Keep it to 2–4 questions maximum — respect the user's time
+- Offer concrete options, not open-ended prompts
+- If findings are straightforward (e.g., only 1–2 clear issues), skip questions and go directly to Phase 4
+
+## Phase 4: Recommended Actions
+
+**After receiving the user's answers**, present a prioritized action summary reflecting the user's priorities and scope from Phase 3.
+
+### Action Summary
+
+List recommended commands in priority order, based on the user's answers:
+
+1. **`/command-name`** — Brief description of what to fix (specific context from critique findings)
+2. **`/command-name`** — Brief description (specific context)
+...
+
+**Rules for recommendations**:
+- Only recommend commands from: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive
+- Order by the user's stated priorities first, then by impact
+- Each item's description should carry enough context that the command knows what to focus on
+- Map each Priority Issue to the appropriate command
+- Skip commands that would address zero issues
+- If the user chose a limited scope, only include items within that scope
+- If the user marked areas as off-limits, exclude commands that would touch those areas
+- End with `/polish` as the final step if any fixes were recommended
+
+After presenting the summary, tell the user:
+
+> You can ask me to run these one at a time, all at once, or in any order you prefer.
+>
+> Re-run `/critique` after fixes to see your score improve.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/.trae-cn/skills/critique/reference/cognitive-load.md b/.trae-cn/skills/critique/reference/cognitive-load.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..313df166b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.trae-cn/skills/critique/reference/cognitive-load.md
@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+# Cognitive Load Assessment
+
+Cognitive load is the total mental effort required to use an interface. Overloaded users make mistakes, get frustrated, and leave. This reference helps identify and fix cognitive overload.
+
+---
+
+## Three Types of Cognitive Load
+
+### Intrinsic Load — The Task Itself
+Complexity inherent to what the user is trying to do. You can't eliminate this, but you can structure it.
+
+**Manage it by**:
+- Breaking complex tasks into discrete steps
+- Providing scaffolding (templates, defaults, examples)
+- Progressive disclosure — show what's needed now, hide the rest
+- Grouping related decisions together
+
+### Extraneous Load — Bad Design
+Mental effort caused by poor design choices. **Eliminate this ruthlessly** — it's pure waste.
+
+**Common sources**:
+- Confusing navigation that requires mental mapping
+- Unclear labels that force users to guess meaning
+- Visual clutter competing for attention
+- Inconsistent patterns that prevent learning
+- Unnecessary steps between user intent and result
+
+### Germane Load — Learning Effort
+Mental effort spent building understanding. This is *good* cognitive load — it leads to mastery.
+
+**Support it by**:
+- Progressive disclosure that reveals complexity gradually
+- Consistent patterns that reward learning
+- Feedback that confirms correct understanding
+- Onboarding that teaches through action, not walls of text
+
+---
+
+## Cognitive Load Checklist
+
+Evaluate the interface against these 8 items:
+
+- [ ] **Single focus**: Can the user complete their primary task without distraction from competing elements?
+- [ ] **Chunking**: Is information presented in digestible groups (≤4 items per group)?
+- [ ] **Grouping**: Are related items visually grouped together (proximity, borders, shared background)?
+- [ ] **Visual hierarchy**: Is it immediately clear what's most important on the screen?
+- [ ] **One thing at a time**: Can the user focus on a single decision before moving to the next?
+- [ ] **Minimal choices**: Are decisions simplified (≤4 visible options at any decision point)?
+- [ ] **Working memory**: Does the user need to remember information from a previous screen to act on the current one?
+- [ ] **Progressive disclosure**: Is complexity revealed only when the user needs it?
+
+**Scoring**: Count the failed items. 0–1 failures = low cognitive load (good). 2–3 = moderate (address soon). 4+ = high cognitive load (critical fix needed).
+
+---
+
+## The Working Memory Rule
+
+**Humans can hold ≤4 items in working memory at once** (Miller's Law revised by Cowan, 2001).
+
+At any decision point, count the number of distinct options, actions, or pieces of information a user must simultaneously consider:
+- **≤4 items**: Within working memory limits — manageable
+- **5–7 items**: Pushing the boundary — consider grouping or progressive disclosure
+- **8+ items**: Overloaded — users will skip, misclick, or abandon
+
+**Practical applications**:
+- Navigation menus: ≤5 top-level items (group the rest under clear categories)
+- Form sections: ≤4 fields visible per group before a visual break
+- Action buttons: 1 primary, 1–2 secondary, group the rest in a menu
+- Dashboard widgets: ≤4 key metrics visible without scrolling
+- Pricing tiers: ≤3 options (more causes analysis paralysis)
+
+---
+
+## Common Cognitive Load Violations
+
+### 1. The Wall of Options
+**Problem**: Presenting 10+ choices at once with no hierarchy.
+**Fix**: Group into categories, highlight recommended, use progressive disclosure.
+
+### 2. The Memory Bridge
+**Problem**: User must remember info from step 1 to complete step 3.
+**Fix**: Keep relevant context visible, or repeat it where it's needed.
+
+### 3. The Hidden Navigation
+**Problem**: User must build a mental map of where things are.
+**Fix**: Always show current location (breadcrumbs, active states, progress indicators).
+
+### 4. The Jargon Barrier
+**Problem**: Technical or domain language forces translation effort.
+**Fix**: Use plain language. If domain terms are unavoidable, define them inline.
+
+### 5. The Visual Noise Floor
+**Problem**: Every element has the same visual weight — nothing stands out.
+**Fix**: Establish clear hierarchy: one primary element, 2–3 secondary, everything else muted.
+
+### 6. The Inconsistent Pattern
+**Problem**: Similar actions work differently in different places.
+**Fix**: Standardize interaction patterns. Same type of action = same type of UI.
+
+### 7. The Multi-Task Demand
+**Problem**: Interface requires processing multiple simultaneous inputs (reading + deciding + navigating).
+**Fix**: Sequence the steps. Let the user do one thing at a time.
+
+### 8. The Context Switch
+**Problem**: User must jump between screens/tabs/modals to gather info for a single decision.
+**Fix**: Co-locate the information needed for each decision. Reduce back-and-forth.
diff --git a/.trae-cn/skills/critique/reference/heuristics-scoring.md b/.trae-cn/skills/critique/reference/heuristics-scoring.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..fd5b1b08b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.trae-cn/skills/critique/reference/heuristics-scoring.md
@@ -0,0 +1,234 @@
+# Heuristics Scoring Guide
+
+Score each of Nielsen's 10 Usability Heuristics on a 0–4 scale. Be honest — a 4 means genuinely excellent, not "good enough."
+
+## Nielsen's 10 Heuristics
+
+### 1. Visibility of System Status
+
+Keep users informed about what's happening through timely, appropriate feedback.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Loading indicators during async operations
+- Confirmation of user actions (save, submit, delete)
+- Progress indicators for multi-step processes
+- Current location in navigation (breadcrumbs, active states)
+- Form validation feedback (inline, not just on submit)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | No feedback — user is guessing what happened |
+| 1 | Rare feedback — most actions produce no visible response |
+| 2 | Partial — some states communicated, major gaps remain |
+| 3 | Good — most operations give clear feedback, minor gaps |
+| 4 | Excellent — every action confirms, progress is always visible |
+
+### 2. Match Between System and Real World
+
+Speak the user's language. Follow real-world conventions. Information appears in natural, logical order.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Familiar terminology (no unexplained jargon)
+- Logical information order matching user expectations
+- Recognizable icons and metaphors
+- Domain-appropriate language for the target audience
+- Natural reading flow (left-to-right, top-to-bottom priority)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Pure tech jargon, alien to users |
+| 1 | Mostly confusing — requires domain expertise to navigate |
+| 2 | Mixed — some plain language, some jargon leaks through |
+| 3 | Mostly natural — occasional term needs context |
+| 4 | Speaks the user's language fluently throughout |
+
+### 3. User Control and Freedom
+
+Users need a clear "emergency exit" from unwanted states without extended dialogue.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Undo/redo functionality
+- Cancel buttons on forms and modals
+- Clear navigation back to safety (home, previous)
+- Easy way to clear filters, search, selections
+- Escape from long or multi-step processes
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Users get trapped — no way out without refreshing |
+| 1 | Difficult exits — must find obscure paths to escape |
+| 2 | Some exits — main flows have escape, edge cases don't |
+| 3 | Good control — users can exit and undo most actions |
+| 4 | Full control — undo, cancel, back, and escape everywhere |
+
+### 4. Consistency and Standards
+
+Users shouldn't wonder whether different words, situations, or actions mean the same thing.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Consistent terminology throughout the interface
+- Same actions produce same results everywhere
+- Platform conventions followed (standard UI patterns)
+- Visual consistency (colors, typography, spacing, components)
+- Consistent interaction patterns (same gesture = same behavior)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Inconsistent everywhere — feels like different products stitched together |
+| 1 | Many inconsistencies — similar things look/behave differently |
+| 2 | Partially consistent — main flows match, details diverge |
+| 3 | Mostly consistent — occasional deviation, nothing confusing |
+| 4 | Fully consistent — cohesive system, predictable behavior |
+
+### 5. Error Prevention
+
+Better than good error messages is a design that prevents problems in the first place.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Confirmation before destructive actions (delete, overwrite)
+- Constraints preventing invalid input (date pickers, dropdowns)
+- Smart defaults that reduce errors
+- Clear labels that prevent misunderstanding
+- Autosave and draft recovery
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Errors easy to make — no guardrails anywhere |
+| 1 | Few safeguards — some inputs validated, most aren't |
+| 2 | Partial prevention — common errors caught, edge cases slip |
+| 3 | Good prevention — most error paths blocked proactively |
+| 4 | Excellent — errors nearly impossible through smart constraints |
+
+### 6. Recognition Rather Than Recall
+
+Minimize memory load. Make objects, actions, and options visible or easily retrievable.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Visible options (not buried in hidden menus)
+- Contextual help when needed (tooltips, inline hints)
+- Recent items and history
+- Autocomplete and suggestions
+- Labels on icons (not icon-only navigation)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Heavy memorization — users must remember paths and commands |
+| 1 | Mostly recall — many hidden features, few visible cues |
+| 2 | Some aids — main actions visible, secondary features hidden |
+| 3 | Good recognition — most things discoverable, few memory demands |
+| 4 | Everything discoverable — users never need to memorize |
+
+### 7. Flexibility and Efficiency of Use
+
+Accelerators — invisible to novices — speed up expert interaction.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Keyboard shortcuts for common actions
+- Customizable interface elements
+- Recent items and favorites
+- Bulk/batch actions
+- Power user features that don't complicate the basics
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | One rigid path — no shortcuts or alternatives |
+| 1 | Limited flexibility — few alternatives to the main path |
+| 2 | Some shortcuts — basic keyboard support, limited bulk actions |
+| 3 | Good accelerators — keyboard nav, some customization |
+| 4 | Highly flexible — multiple paths, power features, customizable |
+
+### 8. Aesthetic and Minimalist Design
+
+Interfaces should not contain irrelevant or rarely needed information. Every element should serve a purpose.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Only necessary information visible at each step
+- Clear visual hierarchy directing attention
+- Purposeful use of color and emphasis
+- No decorative clutter competing for attention
+- Focused, uncluttered layouts
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Overwhelming — everything competes for attention equally |
+| 1 | Cluttered — too much noise, hard to find what matters |
+| 2 | Some clutter — main content clear, periphery noisy |
+| 3 | Mostly clean — focused design, minor visual noise |
+| 4 | Perfectly minimal — every element earns its pixel |
+
+### 9. Help Users Recognize, Diagnose, and Recover from Errors
+
+Error messages should use plain language, precisely indicate the problem, and constructively suggest a solution.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Plain language error messages (no error codes for users)
+- Specific problem identification ("Email is missing @" not "Invalid input")
+- Actionable recovery suggestions
+- Errors displayed near the source of the problem
+- Non-blocking error handling (don't wipe the form)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Cryptic errors — codes, jargon, or no message at all |
+| 1 | Vague errors — "Something went wrong" with no guidance |
+| 2 | Clear but unhelpful — names the problem but not the fix |
+| 3 | Clear with suggestions — identifies problem and offers next steps |
+| 4 | Perfect recovery — pinpoints issue, suggests fix, preserves user work |
+
+### 10. Help and Documentation
+
+Even if the system is usable without docs, help should be easy to find, task-focused, and concise.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Searchable help or documentation
+- Contextual help (tooltips, inline hints, guided tours)
+- Task-focused organization (not feature-organized)
+- Concise, scannable content
+- Easy access without leaving current context
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | No help available anywhere |
+| 1 | Help exists but hard to find or irrelevant |
+| 2 | Basic help — FAQ or docs exist, not contextual |
+| 3 | Good documentation — searchable, mostly task-focused |
+| 4 | Excellent contextual help — right info at the right moment |
+
+---
+
+## Score Summary
+
+**Total possible**: 40 points (10 heuristics × 4 max)
+
+| Score Range | Rating | What It Means |
+|-------------|--------|---------------|
+| 36–40 | Excellent | Minor polish only — ship it |
+| 28–35 | Good | Address weak areas, solid foundation |
+| 20–27 | Acceptable | Significant improvements needed before users are happy |
+| 12–19 | Poor | Major UX overhaul required — core experience broken |
+| 0–11 | Critical | Redesign needed — unusable in current state |
+
+---
+
+## Issue Severity (P0–P3)
+
+Tag each individual issue found during scoring with a priority level:
+
+| Priority | Name | Description | Action |
+|----------|------|-------------|--------|
+| **P0** | Blocking | Prevents task completion entirely | Fix immediately — this is a showstopper |
+| **P1** | Major | Causes significant difficulty or confusion | Fix before release |
+| **P2** | Minor | Annoyance, but workaround exists | Fix in next pass |
+| **P3** | Polish | Nice-to-fix, no real user impact | Fix if time permits |
+
+**Tip**: If you're unsure between two levels, ask: "Would a user contact support about this?" If yes, it's at least P1.
diff --git a/.trae-cn/skills/critique/reference/personas.md b/.trae-cn/skills/critique/reference/personas.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..6325e2839
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.trae-cn/skills/critique/reference/personas.md
@@ -0,0 +1,178 @@
+# Persona-Based Design Testing
+
+Test the interface through the eyes of 5 distinct user archetypes. Each persona exposes different failure modes that a single "design director" perspective would miss.
+
+**How to use**: Select 2–3 personas most relevant to the interface being critiqued. Walk through the primary user action as each persona. Report specific red flags — not generic concerns.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Impatient Power User — "Alex"
+
+**Profile**: Expert with similar products. Expects efficiency, hates hand-holding. Will find shortcuts or leave.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Skips all onboarding and instructions
+- Looks for keyboard shortcuts immediately
+- Tries to bulk-select, batch-edit, and automate
+- Gets frustrated by required steps that feel unnecessary
+- Abandons if anything feels slow or patronizing
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Can Alex complete the core task in under 60 seconds?
+- Are there keyboard shortcuts for common actions?
+- Can onboarding be skipped entirely?
+- Do modals have keyboard dismiss (Esc)?
+- Is there a "power user" path (shortcuts, bulk actions)?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Forced tutorials or unskippable onboarding
+- No keyboard navigation for primary actions
+- Slow animations that can't be skipped
+- One-item-at-a-time workflows where batch would be natural
+- Redundant confirmation steps for low-risk actions
+
+---
+
+## 2. Confused First-Timer — "Jordan"
+
+**Profile**: Never used this type of product. Needs guidance at every step. Will abandon rather than figure it out.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Reads all instructions carefully
+- Hesitates before clicking anything unfamiliar
+- Looks for help or support constantly
+- Misunderstands jargon and abbreviations
+- Takes the most literal interpretation of any label
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Is the first action obviously clear within 5 seconds?
+- Are all icons labeled with text?
+- Is there contextual help at decision points?
+- Does terminology assume prior knowledge?
+- Is there a clear "back" or "undo" at every step?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Icon-only navigation with no labels
+- Technical jargon without explanation
+- No visible help option or guidance
+- Ambiguous next steps after completing an action
+- No confirmation that an action succeeded
+
+---
+
+## 3. Accessibility-Dependent User — "Sam"
+
+**Profile**: Uses screen reader (VoiceOver/NVDA), keyboard-only navigation. May have low vision, motor impairment, or cognitive differences.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Tabs through the interface linearly
+- Relies on ARIA labels and heading structure
+- Cannot see hover states or visual-only indicators
+- Needs adequate color contrast (4.5:1 minimum)
+- May use browser zoom up to 200%
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Can the entire primary flow be completed keyboard-only?
+- Are all interactive elements focusable with visible focus indicators?
+- Do images have meaningful alt text?
+- Is color contrast WCAG AA compliant (4.5:1 for text)?
+- Does the screen reader announce state changes (loading, success, errors)?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Click-only interactions with no keyboard alternative
+- Missing or invisible focus indicators
+- Meaning conveyed by color alone (red = error, green = success)
+- Unlabeled form fields or buttons
+- Time-limited actions without extension option
+- Custom components that break screen reader flow
+
+---
+
+## 4. Deliberate Stress Tester — "Riley"
+
+**Profile**: Methodical user who pushes interfaces beyond the happy path. Tests edge cases, tries unexpected inputs, and probes for gaps in the experience.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Tests edge cases intentionally (empty states, long strings, special characters)
+- Submits forms with unexpected data (emoji, RTL text, very long values)
+- Tries to break workflows by navigating backwards, refreshing mid-flow, or opening in multiple tabs
+- Looks for inconsistencies between what the UI promises and what actually happens
+- Documents problems methodically
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- What happens at the edges (0 items, 1000 items, very long text)?
+- Do error states recover gracefully or leave the UI in a broken state?
+- What happens on refresh mid-workflow? Is state preserved?
+- Are there features that appear to work but produce broken results?
+- How does the UI handle unexpected input (emoji, special chars, paste from Excel)?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Features that appear to work but silently fail or produce wrong results
+- Error handling that exposes technical details or leaves UI in a broken state
+- Empty states that show nothing useful ("No results" with no guidance)
+- Workflows that lose user data on refresh or navigation
+- Inconsistent behavior between similar interactions in different parts of the UI
+
+---
+
+## 5. Distracted Mobile User — "Casey"
+
+**Profile**: Using phone one-handed on the go. Frequently interrupted. Possibly on a slow connection.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Uses thumb only — prefers bottom-of-screen actions
+- Gets interrupted mid-flow and returns later
+- Switches between apps frequently
+- Has limited attention span and low patience
+- Types as little as possible, prefers taps and selections
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Are primary actions in the thumb zone (bottom half of screen)?
+- Is state preserved if the user leaves and returns?
+- Does it work on slow connections (3G)?
+- Can forms leverage autocomplete and smart defaults?
+- Are touch targets at least 44×44pt?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Important actions positioned at the top of the screen (unreachable by thumb)
+- No state persistence — progress lost on tab switch or interruption
+- Large text inputs required where selection would work
+- Heavy assets loading on every page (no lazy loading)
+- Tiny tap targets or targets too close together
+
+---
+
+## Selecting Personas
+
+Choose personas based on the interface type:
+
+| Interface Type | Primary Personas | Why |
+|---------------|-----------------|-----|
+| Landing page / marketing | Jordan, Riley, Casey | First impressions, trust, mobile |
+| Dashboard / admin | Alex, Sam | Power users, accessibility |
+| E-commerce / checkout | Casey, Riley, Jordan | Mobile, edge cases, clarity |
+| Onboarding flow | Jordan, Casey | Confusion, interruption |
+| Data-heavy / analytics | Alex, Sam | Efficiency, keyboard nav |
+| Form-heavy / wizard | Jordan, Sam, Casey | Clarity, accessibility, mobile |
+
+---
+
+## Project-Specific Personas
+
+If `RULES.md` contains a `## Design Context` section (generated by `teach-impeccable`), derive 1–2 additional personas from the audience and brand information:
+
+1. Read the target audience description
+2. Identify the primary user archetype not covered by the 5 predefined personas
+3. Create a persona following this template:
+
+```
+### [Role] — "[Name]"
+
+**Profile**: [2-3 key characteristics derived from Design Context]
+
+**Behaviors**: [3-4 specific behaviors based on the described audience]
+
+**Red Flags**: [3-4 things that would alienate this specific user type]
+```
+
+Only generate project-specific personas when real Design Context data is available. Don't invent audience details — use the 5 predefined personas when no context exists.
diff --git a/.trae-cn/skills/frontend-design/reference/interaction-design.md b/.trae-cn/skills/frontend-design/reference/interaction-design.md
index 10a77564b..19d6809a8 100644
--- a/.trae-cn/skills/frontend-design/reference/interaction-design.md
+++ b/.trae-cn/skills/frontend-design/reference/interaction-design.md
@@ -84,6 +84,78 @@ For tooltips, dropdowns, and non-modal overlays, use native popovers:
 
 **Benefits**: Light-dismiss (click outside closes), proper stacking, no z-index wars, accessible by default.
 
+## Dropdown & Overlay Positioning
+
+Dropdowns rendered with `position: absolute` inside a container that has `overflow: hidden` or `overflow: auto` will be clipped. This is the single most common dropdown bug in generated code.
+
+### CSS Anchor Positioning
+
+The modern solution uses the CSS Anchor Positioning API to tether an overlay to its trigger without JavaScript:
+
+```css
+.trigger {
+  anchor-name: --menu-trigger;
+}
+
+.dropdown {
+  position: fixed;
+  position-anchor: --menu-trigger;
+  position-area: block-end span-inline-end;
+  margin-top: 4px;
+}
+
+/* Flip above if no room below */
+@position-try --flip-above {
+  position-area: block-start span-inline-end;
+  margin-bottom: 4px;
+}
+```
+
+Because the dropdown uses `position: fixed`, it escapes any `overflow` clipping on ancestor elements. The `@position-try` block handles viewport edges automatically. **Browser support**: Chrome 125+, Edge 125+. Not yet in Firefox or Safari - use a fallback for those browsers.
+
+### Popover + Anchor Combo
+
+Combining the Popover API with anchor positioning gives you stacking, light-dismiss, accessibility, and correct positioning in one pattern:
+
+```html
+<button popovertarget="menu" class="trigger">Open</button>
+<div id="menu" popover class="dropdown">
+  <button>Option 1</button>
+  <button>Option 2</button>
+</div>
+```
+
+The `popover` attribute places the element in the **top layer**, which sits above all other content regardless of z-index or overflow. No portal needed.
+
+### Portal / Teleport Pattern
+
+In component frameworks, render the dropdown at the document root and position it with JavaScript:
+
+- **React**: `createPortal(dropdown, document.body)`
+- **Vue**: `<Teleport to="body">`
+- **Svelte**: Use a portal library or mount to `document.body`
+
+Calculate position from the trigger's `getBoundingClientRect()`, then apply `position: fixed` with `top` and `left` values. Recalculate on scroll and resize.
+
+### Fixed Positioning Fallback
+
+For browsers without anchor positioning support, `position: fixed` with manual coordinates avoids overflow clipping:
+
+```css
+.dropdown {
+  position: fixed;
+  /* top/left set via JS from trigger's getBoundingClientRect() */
+}
+```
+
+Check viewport boundaries before rendering. If the dropdown would overflow the bottom edge, flip it above the trigger. If it would overflow the right edge, align it to the trigger's right side instead.
+
+### Anti-Patterns
+
+- **`position: absolute` inside `overflow: hidden`** - The dropdown will be clipped. Use `position: fixed` or the top layer instead.
+- **Arbitrary z-index values** like `z-index: 9999` - Use a semantic z-index scale: `dropdown (100) -> sticky (200) -> modal-backdrop (300) -> modal (400) -> toast (500) -> tooltip (600)`.
+- **Rendering dropdown markup inline** without an escape hatch from the parent's stacking context. Either use `popover` (top layer), a portal, or `position: fixed`.
+
 ## Destructive Actions: Undo > Confirm
 
 **Undo is better than confirmation dialogs**—users click through confirmations mindlessly. Remove from UI immediately, show undo toast, actually delete after toast expires. Use confirmation only for truly irreversible actions (account deletion), high-cost actions, or batch operations.
diff --git a/.trae/skills/audit/SKILL.md b/.trae/skills/audit/SKILL.md
index b0cee9eaa..1debe043e 100644
--- a/.trae/skills/audit/SKILL.md
+++ b/.trae/skills/audit/SKILL.md
@@ -1,125 +1,147 @@
 ---
 name: audit
-description: Perform a comprehensive audit of interface quality across accessibility, performance, theming, and responsive design. Generates a prioritized report with severity ratings. Use when the user wants a design review, accessibility check, quality audit, or a full list of UI issues to fix.
+description: Run technical quality checks across accessibility, performance, theming, responsive design, and anti-patterns. Generates a scored report with P0-P3 severity ratings and actionable plan. Use when the user wants an accessibility check, performance audit, or technical quality review.
 user-invocable: true
 argument-hint: "[area (feature, page, component...)]"
 ---
 
-Run systematic quality checks and generate a comprehensive audit report with prioritized issues and actionable recommendations. Don't fix issues - document them for other commands to address.
+## MANDATORY PREPARATION
 
-**First**: Invoke /frontend-design for design principles and anti-patterns.
+Invoke /frontend-design — it contains design principles, anti-patterns, and the **Context Gathering Protocol**. Follow the protocol before proceeding — if no design context exists yet, you MUST run /teach-impeccable first.
+
+---
+
+Run systematic **technical** quality checks and generate a comprehensive report. Don't fix issues — document them for other commands to address.
+
+This is a code-level audit, not a design critique. Check what's measurable and verifiable in the implementation.
 
 ## Diagnostic Scan
 
-Run comprehensive checks across multiple dimensions:
+Run comprehensive checks across 5 dimensions. Score each dimension 0-4 using the criteria below.
 
-1. **Accessibility (A11y)** - Check for:
-   - **Contrast issues**: Text contrast ratios < 4.5:1 (or 7:1 for AAA)
-   - **Missing ARIA**: Interactive elements without proper roles, labels, or states
-   - **Keyboard navigation**: Missing focus indicators, illogical tab order, keyboard traps
-   - **Semantic HTML**: Improper heading hierarchy, missing landmarks, divs instead of buttons
-   - **Alt text**: Missing or poor image descriptions
-   - **Form issues**: Inputs without labels, poor error messaging, missing required indicators
+### 1. Accessibility (A11y)
 
-2. **Performance** - Check for:
-   - **Layout thrashing**: Reading/writing layout properties in loops
-   - **Expensive animations**: Animating layout properties (width, height, top, left) instead of transform/opacity
-   - **Missing optimization**: Images without lazy loading, unoptimized assets, missing will-change
-   - **Bundle size**: Unnecessary imports, unused dependencies
-   - **Render performance**: Unnecessary re-renders, missing memoization
+**Check for**:
+- **Contrast issues**: Text contrast ratios < 4.5:1 (or 7:1 for AAA)
+- **Missing ARIA**: Interactive elements without proper roles, labels, or states
+- **Keyboard navigation**: Missing focus indicators, illogical tab order, keyboard traps
+- **Semantic HTML**: Improper heading hierarchy, missing landmarks, divs instead of buttons
+- **Alt text**: Missing or poor image descriptions
+- **Form issues**: Inputs without labels, poor error messaging, missing required indicators
 
-3. **Theming** - Check for:
-   - **Hard-coded colors**: Colors not using design tokens
-   - **Broken dark mode**: Missing dark mode variants, poor contrast in dark theme
-   - **Inconsistent tokens**: Using wrong tokens, mixing token types
-   - **Theme switching issues**: Values that don't update on theme change
+**Score 0-4**: 0=Inaccessible (fails WCAG A), 1=Major gaps (few ARIA labels, no keyboard nav), 2=Partial (some a11y effort, significant gaps), 3=Good (WCAG AA mostly met, minor gaps), 4=Excellent (WCAG AA fully met, approaches AAA)
 
-4. **Responsive Design** - Check for:
-   - **Fixed widths**: Hard-coded widths that break on mobile
-   - **Touch targets**: Interactive elements < 44x44px
-   - **Horizontal scroll**: Content overflow on narrow viewports
-   - **Text scaling**: Layouts that break when text size increases
-   - **Missing breakpoints**: No mobile/tablet variants
+### 2. Performance
 
-5. **Anti-Patterns (CRITICAL)** - Check against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill. Look for AI slop tells (AI color palette, gradient text, glassmorphism, hero metrics, card grids, generic fonts) and general design anti-patterns (gray on color, nested cards, bounce easing, redundant copy).
+**Check for**:
+- **Layout thrashing**: Reading/writing layout properties in loops
+- **Expensive animations**: Animating layout properties (width, height, top, left) instead of transform/opacity
+- **Missing optimization**: Images without lazy loading, unoptimized assets, missing will-change
+- **Bundle size**: Unnecessary imports, unused dependencies
+- **Render performance**: Unnecessary re-renders, missing memoization
 
-**CRITICAL**: This is an audit, not a fix. Document issues thoroughly with clear explanations of impact. Use other commands (normalize, optimize, harden, etc.) to fix issues after audit.
+**Score 0-4**: 0=Severe issues (layout thrash, unoptimized everything), 1=Major problems (no lazy loading, expensive animations), 2=Partial (some optimization, gaps remain), 3=Good (mostly optimized, minor improvements possible), 4=Excellent (fast, lean, well-optimized)
 
-## Generate Comprehensive Report
+### 3. Theming
 
-Create a detailed audit report with the following structure:
+**Check for**:
+- **Hard-coded colors**: Colors not using design tokens
+- **Broken dark mode**: Missing dark mode variants, poor contrast in dark theme
+- **Inconsistent tokens**: Using wrong tokens, mixing token types
+- **Theme switching issues**: Values that don't update on theme change
+
+**Score 0-4**: 0=No theming (hard-coded everything), 1=Minimal tokens (mostly hard-coded), 2=Partial (tokens exist but inconsistently used), 3=Good (tokens used, minor hard-coded values), 4=Excellent (full token system, dark mode works perfectly)
+
+### 4. Responsive Design
+
+**Check for**:
+- **Fixed widths**: Hard-coded widths that break on mobile
+- **Touch targets**: Interactive elements < 44x44px
+- **Horizontal scroll**: Content overflow on narrow viewports
+- **Text scaling**: Layouts that break when text size increases
+- **Missing breakpoints**: No mobile/tablet variants
+
+**Score 0-4**: 0=Desktop-only (breaks on mobile), 1=Major issues (some breakpoints, many failures), 2=Partial (works on mobile, rough edges), 3=Good (responsive, minor touch target or overflow issues), 4=Excellent (fluid, all viewports, proper touch targets)
+
+### 5. Anti-Patterns (CRITICAL)
+
+Check against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill. Look for AI slop tells (AI color palette, gradient text, glassmorphism, hero metrics, card grids, generic fonts) and general design anti-patterns (gray on color, nested cards, bounce easing, redundant copy).
+
+**Score 0-4**: 0=AI slop gallery (5+ tells), 1=Heavy AI aesthetic (3-4 tells), 2=Some tells (1-2 noticeable), 3=Mostly clean (subtle issues only), 4=No AI tells (distinctive, intentional design)
+
+## Generate Report
+
+### Audit Health Score
+
+| # | Dimension | Score | Key Finding |
+|---|-----------|-------|-------------|
+| 1 | Accessibility | ? | [most critical a11y issue or "--"] |
+| 2 | Performance | ? | |
+| 3 | Responsive Design | ? | |
+| 4 | Theming | ? | |
+| 5 | Anti-Patterns | ? | |
+| **Total** | | **??/20** | **[Rating band]** |
+
+**Rating bands**: 18-20 Excellent (minor polish), 14-17 Good (address weak dimensions), 10-13 Acceptable (significant work needed), 6-9 Poor (major overhaul), 0-5 Critical (fundamental issues)
 
 ### Anti-Patterns Verdict
-**Start here.** Pass/fail: Does this look AI-generated? List specific tells from the skill's Anti-Patterns section. Be brutally honest.
+**Start here.** Pass/fail: Does this look AI-generated? List specific tells. Be brutally honest.
 
 ### Executive Summary
-- Total issues found (count by severity)
-- Most critical issues (top 3-5)
-- Overall quality score (if applicable)
+- Audit Health Score: **??/20** ([rating band])
+- Total issues found (count by severity: P0/P1/P2/P3)
+- Top 3-5 critical issues
 - Recommended next steps
 
 ### Detailed Findings by Severity
 
+Tag every issue with **P0-P3 severity**:
+- **P0 Blocking**: Prevents task completion — fix immediately
+- **P1 Major**: Significant difficulty or WCAG AA violation — fix before release
+- **P2 Minor**: Annoyance, workaround exists — fix in next pass
+- **P3 Polish**: Nice-to-fix, no real user impact — fix if time permits
+
 For each issue, document:
-- **Location**: Where the issue occurs (component, file, line)
-- **Severity**: Critical / High / Medium / Low
-- **Category**: Accessibility / Performance / Theming / Responsive
-- **Description**: What the issue is
+- **[P?] Issue name**
+- **Location**: Component, file, line
+- **Category**: Accessibility / Performance / Theming / Responsive / Anti-Pattern
 - **Impact**: How it affects users
 - **WCAG/Standard**: Which standard it violates (if applicable)
 - **Recommendation**: How to fix it
-- **Suggested command**: Which command to use (prefer: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive — or other installed skills you're sure exist)
-
-#### Critical Issues
-[Issues that block core functionality or violate WCAG A]
-
-#### High-Severity Issues  
-[Significant usability/accessibility impact, WCAG AA violations]
-
-#### Medium-Severity Issues
-[Quality issues, WCAG AAA violations, performance concerns]
-
-#### Low-Severity Issues
-[Minor inconsistencies, optimization opportunities]
+- **Suggested command**: Which command to use (prefer: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive)
 
 ### Patterns & Systemic Issues
 
-Identify recurring problems:
+Identify recurring problems that indicate systemic gaps rather than one-off mistakes:
 - "Hard-coded colors appear in 15+ components, should use design tokens"
 - "Touch targets consistently too small (<44px) throughout mobile experience"
-- "Missing focus indicators on all custom interactive components"
 
 ### Positive Findings
 
-Note what's working well:
-- Good practices to maintain
-- Exemplary implementations to replicate elsewhere
+Note what's working well — good practices to maintain and replicate.
 
-### Recommendations by Priority
+## Recommended Actions
 
-Create actionable plan:
-1. **Immediate**: Critical blockers to fix first
-2. **Short-term**: High-severity issues (this sprint)
-3. **Medium-term**: Quality improvements (next sprint)
-4. **Long-term**: Nice-to-haves and optimizations
+List recommended commands in priority order (P0 first, then P1, then P2):
 
-### Suggested Commands for Fixes
+1. **[P?] `/command-name`** — Brief description (specific context from audit findings)
+2. **[P?] `/command-name`** — Brief description (specific context)
 
-Map issues to available commands. Prefer these: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive. You may also suggest other installed skills you're sure exist, but never invent commands.
+**Rules**: Only recommend commands from: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive. Map findings to the most appropriate command. End with `/polish` as the final step if any fixes were recommended.
 
-Examples:
-- "Use `/normalize` to align with design system (addresses N theming issues)"
-- "Use `/optimize` to improve performance (addresses N performance issues)"
-- "Use `/harden` to improve resilience (addresses N edge cases)"
+After presenting the summary, tell the user:
 
-**IMPORTANT**: Be thorough but actionable. Too many low-priority issues creates noise. Focus on what actually matters.
+> You can ask me to run these one at a time, all at once, or in any order you prefer.
+>
+> Re-run `/audit` after fixes to see your score improve.
+
+**IMPORTANT**: Be thorough but actionable. Too many P3 issues creates noise. Focus on what actually matters.
 
 **NEVER**:
 - Report issues without explaining impact (why does this matter?)
-- Mix severity levels inconsistently
-- Skip positive findings (celebrate what works)
 - Provide generic recommendations (be specific and actionable)
-- Forget to prioritize (everything can't be critical)
+- Skip positive findings (celebrate what works)
+- Forget to prioritize (everything can't be P0)
 - Report false positives without verification
 
-Remember: You're a quality auditor with exceptional attention to detail. Document systematically, prioritize ruthlessly, and provide clear paths to improvement. A good audit makes fixing easy.
\ No newline at end of file
+Remember: You're a technical quality auditor. Document systematically, prioritize ruthlessly, cite specific code locations, and provide clear paths to improvement.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/.trae/skills/critique/SKILL.md b/.trae/skills/critique/SKILL.md
index 29806cd81..8a409115a 100644
--- a/.trae/skills/critique/SKILL.md
+++ b/.trae/skills/critique/SKILL.md
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 name: critique
-description: Evaluate design effectiveness from a UX perspective. Assesses visual hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, and overall design quality with actionable feedback. Use when the user asks to review, critique, evaluate, audit, or give feedback on a design, UI, or component.
+description: Evaluate design from a UX perspective, assessing visual hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, cognitive load, and overall quality with quantitative scoring, persona-based testing, and actionable feedback. Use when the user asks to review, critique, evaluate, or give feedback on a design or component.
 user-invocable: true
 argument-hint: "[area (feature, page, component...)]"
 ---
@@ -11,9 +11,9 @@ Invoke /frontend-design — it contains design principles, anti-patterns, and th
 
 ---
 
-Conduct a holistic design critique, evaluating whether the interface actually works—not just technically, but as a designed experience. Think like a design director giving feedback.
+Conduct a holistic design critique, evaluating whether the interface actually works — not just technically, but as a designed experience. Think like a design director giving feedback.
 
-## Design Critique
+## Phase 1: Design Critique
 
 Evaluate the interface across these dimensions:
 
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ Evaluate the interface across these dimensions:
 
 **This is the most important check.** Does this look like every other AI-generated interface from 2024-2025?
 
-Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill—they are the fingerprints of AI-generated work. Check for the AI color palette, gradient text, dark mode with glowing accents, glassmorphism, hero metric layouts, identical card grids, generic fonts, and all other tells.
+Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill — they are the fingerprints of AI-generated work. Check for the AI color palette, gradient text, dark mode with glowing accents, glassmorphism, hero metric layouts, identical card grids, generic fonts, and all other tells.
 
 **The test**: If you showed this to someone and said "AI made this," would they believe you immediately? If yes, that's the problem.
 
@@ -31,17 +31,23 @@ Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design sk
 - Do size, color, and position communicate importance correctly?
 - Is there visual competition between elements that should have different weights?
 
-### 3. Information Architecture
+### 3. Information Architecture & Cognitive Load
+> *Consult [cognitive-load](reference/cognitive-load.md) for the working memory rule and 8-item checklist*
 - Is the structure intuitive? Would a new user understand the organization?
 - Is related content grouped logically?
-- Are there too many choices at once? (cognitive overload)
+- Are there too many choices at once? Count visible options at each decision point — if >4, flag it
 - Is the navigation clear and predictable?
+- **Progressive disclosure**: Is complexity revealed only when needed, or dumped on the user upfront?
+- **Run the 8-item cognitive load checklist** from the reference. Report failure count: 0–1 = low (good), 2–3 = moderate, 4+ = critical.
 
-### 4. Emotional Resonance
+### 4. Emotional Journey
 - What emotion does this interface evoke? Is that intentional?
 - Does it match the brand personality?
-- Does it feel trustworthy, approachable, premium, playful—whatever it should feel?
+- Does it feel trustworthy, approachable, premium, playful — whatever it should feel?
 - Would the target user feel "this is for me"?
+- **Peak-end rule**: Is the most intense moment positive? Does the experience end well (confirmation, celebration, clear next step)?
+- **Emotional valleys**: Check for onboarding frustration, error cliffs, feature discovery gaps, or anxiety spikes at high-stakes moments (payment, delete, commit)
+- **Interventions at negative moments**: Are there design interventions where users are likely to feel frustrated or anxious? (progress indicators, reassurance copy, undo options, social proof)
 
 ### 5. Discoverability & Affordance
 - Are interactive elements obviously interactive?
@@ -65,7 +71,7 @@ Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design sk
 - Is color used to communicate, not just decorate?
 - Does the palette feel cohesive?
 - Are accent colors drawing attention to the right things?
-- Does it work for colorblind users? (not just technically—does meaning still come through?)
+- Does it work for colorblind users? (not just technically — does meaning still come through?)
 
 ### 9. States & Edge Cases
 - Empty states: Do they guide users toward action, or just say "nothing here"?
@@ -79,41 +85,117 @@ Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design sk
 - Are labels and buttons unambiguous?
 - Does error copy help users fix the problem?
 
-## Generate Critique Report
+## Phase 2: Present Findings
 
 Structure your feedback as a design director would:
 
+### Design Health Score
+> *Consult [heuristics-scoring](reference/heuristics-scoring.md)*
+
+Score each of Nielsen's 10 heuristics 0–4. Present as a table:
+
+| # | Heuristic | Score | Key Issue |
+|---|-----------|-------|-----------|
+| 1 | Visibility of System Status | ? | [specific finding or "—" if solid] |
+| 2 | Match System / Real World | ? | |
+| 3 | User Control and Freedom | ? | |
+| 4 | Consistency and Standards | ? | |
+| 5 | Error Prevention | ? | |
+| 6 | Recognition Rather Than Recall | ? | |
+| 7 | Flexibility and Efficiency | ? | |
+| 8 | Aesthetic and Minimalist Design | ? | |
+| 9 | Error Recovery | ? | |
+| 10 | Help and Documentation | ? | |
+| **Total** | | **??/40** | **[Rating band]** |
+
+Be honest with scores. A 4 means genuinely excellent. Most real interfaces score 20–32.
+
 ### Anti-Patterns Verdict
 **Start here.** Pass/fail: Does this look AI-generated? List specific tells from the skill's Anti-Patterns section. Be brutally honest.
 
 ### Overall Impression
-A brief gut reaction—what works, what doesn't, and the single biggest opportunity.
+A brief gut reaction — what works, what doesn't, and the single biggest opportunity.
 
 ### What's Working
-Highlight 2-3 things done well. Be specific about why they work.
+Highlight 2–3 things done well. Be specific about why they work.
 
 ### Priority Issues
-The 3-5 most impactful design problems, ordered by importance:
+The 3–5 most impactful design problems, ordered by importance.
 
-For each issue:
-- **What**: Name the problem clearly
+For each issue, tag with **P0–P3 severity** (consult [heuristics-scoring](reference/heuristics-scoring.md) for severity definitions):
+- **[P?] What**: Name the problem clearly
 - **Why it matters**: How this hurts users or undermines goals
 - **Fix**: What to do about it (be concrete)
-- **Command**: Which command to use (prefer: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive — or other installed skills you're sure exist)
+- **Suggested command**: Which command could address this (from: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive)
+
+### Persona Red Flags
+> *Consult [personas](reference/personas.md)*
+
+Auto-select 2–3 personas most relevant to this interface type (use the selection table in the reference). If `RULES.md` contains a `## Design Context` section from `teach-impeccable`, also generate 1–2 project-specific personas from the audience/brand info.
+
+For each selected persona, walk through the primary user action and list specific red flags found:
+
+**Alex (Power User)**: No keyboard shortcuts detected. Form requires 8 clicks for primary action. Forced modal onboarding. ⚠️ High abandonment risk.
+
+**Jordan (First-Timer)**: Icon-only nav in sidebar. Technical jargon in error messages ("404 Not Found"). No visible help. ⚠️ Will abandon at step 2.
+
+Be specific — name the exact elements and interactions that fail each persona. Don't write generic persona descriptions; write what broke for them.
 
 ### Minor Observations
 Quick notes on smaller issues worth addressing.
 
-### Questions to Consider
-Provocative questions that might unlock better solutions:
-- "What if the primary action were more prominent?"
-- "Does this need to feel this complex?"
-- "What would a confident version of this look like?"
-
 **Remember**:
-- Be direct—vague feedback wastes everyone's time
-- Be specific—"the submit button" not "some elements"
+- Be direct — vague feedback wastes everyone's time
+- Be specific — "the submit button" not "some elements"
 - Say what's wrong AND why it matters to users
 - Give concrete suggestions, not just "consider exploring..."
-- Prioritize ruthlessly—if everything is important, nothing is
-- Don't soften criticism—developers need honest feedback to ship great design
\ No newline at end of file
+- Prioritize ruthlessly — if everything is important, nothing is
+- Don't soften criticism — developers need honest feedback to ship great design
+
+## Phase 3: Ask the User
+
+**After presenting findings**, use targeted questions based on what was actually found. ask the user directly to clarify what you cannot infer. These answers will shape the action plan.
+
+Ask questions along these lines (adapt to the specific findings — do NOT ask generic questions):
+
+1. **Priority direction**: Based on the issues found, ask which category matters most to the user right now. For example: "I found problems with visual hierarchy, color usage, and information overload. Which area should we tackle first?" Offer the top 2–3 issue categories as options.
+
+2. **Design intent**: If the critique found a tonal mismatch, ask whether it was intentional. For example: "The interface feels clinical and corporate. Is that the intended tone, or should it feel warmer/bolder/more playful?" Offer 2–3 tonal directions as options based on what would fix the issues found.
+
+3. **Scope**: Ask how much the user wants to take on. For example: "I found N issues. Want to address everything, or focus on the top 3?" Offer scope options like "Top 3 only", "All issues", "Critical issues only".
+
+4. **Constraints** (optional — only ask if relevant): If the findings touch many areas, ask if anything is off-limits. For example: "Should any sections stay as-is?" This prevents the plan from touching things the user considers done.
+
+**Rules for questions**:
+- Every question must reference specific findings from Phase 2 — never ask generic "who is your audience?" questions
+- Keep it to 2–4 questions maximum — respect the user's time
+- Offer concrete options, not open-ended prompts
+- If findings are straightforward (e.g., only 1–2 clear issues), skip questions and go directly to Phase 4
+
+## Phase 4: Recommended Actions
+
+**After receiving the user's answers**, present a prioritized action summary reflecting the user's priorities and scope from Phase 3.
+
+### Action Summary
+
+List recommended commands in priority order, based on the user's answers:
+
+1. **`/command-name`** — Brief description of what to fix (specific context from critique findings)
+2. **`/command-name`** — Brief description (specific context)
+...
+
+**Rules for recommendations**:
+- Only recommend commands from: /animate, /quieter, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /distill, /delight, /onboard, /normalize, /audit, /harden, /polish, /extract, /bolder, /arrange, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive
+- Order by the user's stated priorities first, then by impact
+- Each item's description should carry enough context that the command knows what to focus on
+- Map each Priority Issue to the appropriate command
+- Skip commands that would address zero issues
+- If the user chose a limited scope, only include items within that scope
+- If the user marked areas as off-limits, exclude commands that would touch those areas
+- End with `/polish` as the final step if any fixes were recommended
+
+After presenting the summary, tell the user:
+
+> You can ask me to run these one at a time, all at once, or in any order you prefer.
+>
+> Re-run `/critique` after fixes to see your score improve.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/.trae/skills/critique/reference/cognitive-load.md b/.trae/skills/critique/reference/cognitive-load.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..313df166b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.trae/skills/critique/reference/cognitive-load.md
@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+# Cognitive Load Assessment
+
+Cognitive load is the total mental effort required to use an interface. Overloaded users make mistakes, get frustrated, and leave. This reference helps identify and fix cognitive overload.
+
+---
+
+## Three Types of Cognitive Load
+
+### Intrinsic Load — The Task Itself
+Complexity inherent to what the user is trying to do. You can't eliminate this, but you can structure it.
+
+**Manage it by**:
+- Breaking complex tasks into discrete steps
+- Providing scaffolding (templates, defaults, examples)
+- Progressive disclosure — show what's needed now, hide the rest
+- Grouping related decisions together
+
+### Extraneous Load — Bad Design
+Mental effort caused by poor design choices. **Eliminate this ruthlessly** — it's pure waste.
+
+**Common sources**:
+- Confusing navigation that requires mental mapping
+- Unclear labels that force users to guess meaning
+- Visual clutter competing for attention
+- Inconsistent patterns that prevent learning
+- Unnecessary steps between user intent and result
+
+### Germane Load — Learning Effort
+Mental effort spent building understanding. This is *good* cognitive load — it leads to mastery.
+
+**Support it by**:
+- Progressive disclosure that reveals complexity gradually
+- Consistent patterns that reward learning
+- Feedback that confirms correct understanding
+- Onboarding that teaches through action, not walls of text
+
+---
+
+## Cognitive Load Checklist
+
+Evaluate the interface against these 8 items:
+
+- [ ] **Single focus**: Can the user complete their primary task without distraction from competing elements?
+- [ ] **Chunking**: Is information presented in digestible groups (≤4 items per group)?
+- [ ] **Grouping**: Are related items visually grouped together (proximity, borders, shared background)?
+- [ ] **Visual hierarchy**: Is it immediately clear what's most important on the screen?
+- [ ] **One thing at a time**: Can the user focus on a single decision before moving to the next?
+- [ ] **Minimal choices**: Are decisions simplified (≤4 visible options at any decision point)?
+- [ ] **Working memory**: Does the user need to remember information from a previous screen to act on the current one?
+- [ ] **Progressive disclosure**: Is complexity revealed only when the user needs it?
+
+**Scoring**: Count the failed items. 0–1 failures = low cognitive load (good). 2–3 = moderate (address soon). 4+ = high cognitive load (critical fix needed).
+
+---
+
+## The Working Memory Rule
+
+**Humans can hold ≤4 items in working memory at once** (Miller's Law revised by Cowan, 2001).
+
+At any decision point, count the number of distinct options, actions, or pieces of information a user must simultaneously consider:
+- **≤4 items**: Within working memory limits — manageable
+- **5–7 items**: Pushing the boundary — consider grouping or progressive disclosure
+- **8+ items**: Overloaded — users will skip, misclick, or abandon
+
+**Practical applications**:
+- Navigation menus: ≤5 top-level items (group the rest under clear categories)
+- Form sections: ≤4 fields visible per group before a visual break
+- Action buttons: 1 primary, 1–2 secondary, group the rest in a menu
+- Dashboard widgets: ≤4 key metrics visible without scrolling
+- Pricing tiers: ≤3 options (more causes analysis paralysis)
+
+---
+
+## Common Cognitive Load Violations
+
+### 1. The Wall of Options
+**Problem**: Presenting 10+ choices at once with no hierarchy.
+**Fix**: Group into categories, highlight recommended, use progressive disclosure.
+
+### 2. The Memory Bridge
+**Problem**: User must remember info from step 1 to complete step 3.
+**Fix**: Keep relevant context visible, or repeat it where it's needed.
+
+### 3. The Hidden Navigation
+**Problem**: User must build a mental map of where things are.
+**Fix**: Always show current location (breadcrumbs, active states, progress indicators).
+
+### 4. The Jargon Barrier
+**Problem**: Technical or domain language forces translation effort.
+**Fix**: Use plain language. If domain terms are unavoidable, define them inline.
+
+### 5. The Visual Noise Floor
+**Problem**: Every element has the same visual weight — nothing stands out.
+**Fix**: Establish clear hierarchy: one primary element, 2–3 secondary, everything else muted.
+
+### 6. The Inconsistent Pattern
+**Problem**: Similar actions work differently in different places.
+**Fix**: Standardize interaction patterns. Same type of action = same type of UI.
+
+### 7. The Multi-Task Demand
+**Problem**: Interface requires processing multiple simultaneous inputs (reading + deciding + navigating).
+**Fix**: Sequence the steps. Let the user do one thing at a time.
+
+### 8. The Context Switch
+**Problem**: User must jump between screens/tabs/modals to gather info for a single decision.
+**Fix**: Co-locate the information needed for each decision. Reduce back-and-forth.
diff --git a/.trae/skills/critique/reference/heuristics-scoring.md b/.trae/skills/critique/reference/heuristics-scoring.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..fd5b1b08b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.trae/skills/critique/reference/heuristics-scoring.md
@@ -0,0 +1,234 @@
+# Heuristics Scoring Guide
+
+Score each of Nielsen's 10 Usability Heuristics on a 0–4 scale. Be honest — a 4 means genuinely excellent, not "good enough."
+
+## Nielsen's 10 Heuristics
+
+### 1. Visibility of System Status
+
+Keep users informed about what's happening through timely, appropriate feedback.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Loading indicators during async operations
+- Confirmation of user actions (save, submit, delete)
+- Progress indicators for multi-step processes
+- Current location in navigation (breadcrumbs, active states)
+- Form validation feedback (inline, not just on submit)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | No feedback — user is guessing what happened |
+| 1 | Rare feedback — most actions produce no visible response |
+| 2 | Partial — some states communicated, major gaps remain |
+| 3 | Good — most operations give clear feedback, minor gaps |
+| 4 | Excellent — every action confirms, progress is always visible |
+
+### 2. Match Between System and Real World
+
+Speak the user's language. Follow real-world conventions. Information appears in natural, logical order.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Familiar terminology (no unexplained jargon)
+- Logical information order matching user expectations
+- Recognizable icons and metaphors
+- Domain-appropriate language for the target audience
+- Natural reading flow (left-to-right, top-to-bottom priority)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Pure tech jargon, alien to users |
+| 1 | Mostly confusing — requires domain expertise to navigate |
+| 2 | Mixed — some plain language, some jargon leaks through |
+| 3 | Mostly natural — occasional term needs context |
+| 4 | Speaks the user's language fluently throughout |
+
+### 3. User Control and Freedom
+
+Users need a clear "emergency exit" from unwanted states without extended dialogue.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Undo/redo functionality
+- Cancel buttons on forms and modals
+- Clear navigation back to safety (home, previous)
+- Easy way to clear filters, search, selections
+- Escape from long or multi-step processes
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Users get trapped — no way out without refreshing |
+| 1 | Difficult exits — must find obscure paths to escape |
+| 2 | Some exits — main flows have escape, edge cases don't |
+| 3 | Good control — users can exit and undo most actions |
+| 4 | Full control — undo, cancel, back, and escape everywhere |
+
+### 4. Consistency and Standards
+
+Users shouldn't wonder whether different words, situations, or actions mean the same thing.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Consistent terminology throughout the interface
+- Same actions produce same results everywhere
+- Platform conventions followed (standard UI patterns)
+- Visual consistency (colors, typography, spacing, components)
+- Consistent interaction patterns (same gesture = same behavior)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Inconsistent everywhere — feels like different products stitched together |
+| 1 | Many inconsistencies — similar things look/behave differently |
+| 2 | Partially consistent — main flows match, details diverge |
+| 3 | Mostly consistent — occasional deviation, nothing confusing |
+| 4 | Fully consistent — cohesive system, predictable behavior |
+
+### 5. Error Prevention
+
+Better than good error messages is a design that prevents problems in the first place.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Confirmation before destructive actions (delete, overwrite)
+- Constraints preventing invalid input (date pickers, dropdowns)
+- Smart defaults that reduce errors
+- Clear labels that prevent misunderstanding
+- Autosave and draft recovery
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Errors easy to make — no guardrails anywhere |
+| 1 | Few safeguards — some inputs validated, most aren't |
+| 2 | Partial prevention — common errors caught, edge cases slip |
+| 3 | Good prevention — most error paths blocked proactively |
+| 4 | Excellent — errors nearly impossible through smart constraints |
+
+### 6. Recognition Rather Than Recall
+
+Minimize memory load. Make objects, actions, and options visible or easily retrievable.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Visible options (not buried in hidden menus)
+- Contextual help when needed (tooltips, inline hints)
+- Recent items and history
+- Autocomplete and suggestions
+- Labels on icons (not icon-only navigation)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Heavy memorization — users must remember paths and commands |
+| 1 | Mostly recall — many hidden features, few visible cues |
+| 2 | Some aids — main actions visible, secondary features hidden |
+| 3 | Good recognition — most things discoverable, few memory demands |
+| 4 | Everything discoverable — users never need to memorize |
+
+### 7. Flexibility and Efficiency of Use
+
+Accelerators — invisible to novices — speed up expert interaction.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Keyboard shortcuts for common actions
+- Customizable interface elements
+- Recent items and favorites
+- Bulk/batch actions
+- Power user features that don't complicate the basics
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | One rigid path — no shortcuts or alternatives |
+| 1 | Limited flexibility — few alternatives to the main path |
+| 2 | Some shortcuts — basic keyboard support, limited bulk actions |
+| 3 | Good accelerators — keyboard nav, some customization |
+| 4 | Highly flexible — multiple paths, power features, customizable |
+
+### 8. Aesthetic and Minimalist Design
+
+Interfaces should not contain irrelevant or rarely needed information. Every element should serve a purpose.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Only necessary information visible at each step
+- Clear visual hierarchy directing attention
+- Purposeful use of color and emphasis
+- No decorative clutter competing for attention
+- Focused, uncluttered layouts
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Overwhelming — everything competes for attention equally |
+| 1 | Cluttered — too much noise, hard to find what matters |
+| 2 | Some clutter — main content clear, periphery noisy |
+| 3 | Mostly clean — focused design, minor visual noise |
+| 4 | Perfectly minimal — every element earns its pixel |
+
+### 9. Help Users Recognize, Diagnose, and Recover from Errors
+
+Error messages should use plain language, precisely indicate the problem, and constructively suggest a solution.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Plain language error messages (no error codes for users)
+- Specific problem identification ("Email is missing @" not "Invalid input")
+- Actionable recovery suggestions
+- Errors displayed near the source of the problem
+- Non-blocking error handling (don't wipe the form)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Cryptic errors — codes, jargon, or no message at all |
+| 1 | Vague errors — "Something went wrong" with no guidance |
+| 2 | Clear but unhelpful — names the problem but not the fix |
+| 3 | Clear with suggestions — identifies problem and offers next steps |
+| 4 | Perfect recovery — pinpoints issue, suggests fix, preserves user work |
+
+### 10. Help and Documentation
+
+Even if the system is usable without docs, help should be easy to find, task-focused, and concise.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Searchable help or documentation
+- Contextual help (tooltips, inline hints, guided tours)
+- Task-focused organization (not feature-organized)
+- Concise, scannable content
+- Easy access without leaving current context
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | No help available anywhere |
+| 1 | Help exists but hard to find or irrelevant |
+| 2 | Basic help — FAQ or docs exist, not contextual |
+| 3 | Good documentation — searchable, mostly task-focused |
+| 4 | Excellent contextual help — right info at the right moment |
+
+---
+
+## Score Summary
+
+**Total possible**: 40 points (10 heuristics × 4 max)
+
+| Score Range | Rating | What It Means |
+|-------------|--------|---------------|
+| 36–40 | Excellent | Minor polish only — ship it |
+| 28–35 | Good | Address weak areas, solid foundation |
+| 20–27 | Acceptable | Significant improvements needed before users are happy |
+| 12–19 | Poor | Major UX overhaul required — core experience broken |
+| 0–11 | Critical | Redesign needed — unusable in current state |
+
+---
+
+## Issue Severity (P0–P3)
+
+Tag each individual issue found during scoring with a priority level:
+
+| Priority | Name | Description | Action |
+|----------|------|-------------|--------|
+| **P0** | Blocking | Prevents task completion entirely | Fix immediately — this is a showstopper |
+| **P1** | Major | Causes significant difficulty or confusion | Fix before release |
+| **P2** | Minor | Annoyance, but workaround exists | Fix in next pass |
+| **P3** | Polish | Nice-to-fix, no real user impact | Fix if time permits |
+
+**Tip**: If you're unsure between two levels, ask: "Would a user contact support about this?" If yes, it's at least P1.
diff --git a/.trae/skills/critique/reference/personas.md b/.trae/skills/critique/reference/personas.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..6325e2839
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.trae/skills/critique/reference/personas.md
@@ -0,0 +1,178 @@
+# Persona-Based Design Testing
+
+Test the interface through the eyes of 5 distinct user archetypes. Each persona exposes different failure modes that a single "design director" perspective would miss.
+
+**How to use**: Select 2–3 personas most relevant to the interface being critiqued. Walk through the primary user action as each persona. Report specific red flags — not generic concerns.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Impatient Power User — "Alex"
+
+**Profile**: Expert with similar products. Expects efficiency, hates hand-holding. Will find shortcuts or leave.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Skips all onboarding and instructions
+- Looks for keyboard shortcuts immediately
+- Tries to bulk-select, batch-edit, and automate
+- Gets frustrated by required steps that feel unnecessary
+- Abandons if anything feels slow or patronizing
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Can Alex complete the core task in under 60 seconds?
+- Are there keyboard shortcuts for common actions?
+- Can onboarding be skipped entirely?
+- Do modals have keyboard dismiss (Esc)?
+- Is there a "power user" path (shortcuts, bulk actions)?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Forced tutorials or unskippable onboarding
+- No keyboard navigation for primary actions
+- Slow animations that can't be skipped
+- One-item-at-a-time workflows where batch would be natural
+- Redundant confirmation steps for low-risk actions
+
+---
+
+## 2. Confused First-Timer — "Jordan"
+
+**Profile**: Never used this type of product. Needs guidance at every step. Will abandon rather than figure it out.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Reads all instructions carefully
+- Hesitates before clicking anything unfamiliar
+- Looks for help or support constantly
+- Misunderstands jargon and abbreviations
+- Takes the most literal interpretation of any label
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Is the first action obviously clear within 5 seconds?
+- Are all icons labeled with text?
+- Is there contextual help at decision points?
+- Does terminology assume prior knowledge?
+- Is there a clear "back" or "undo" at every step?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Icon-only navigation with no labels
+- Technical jargon without explanation
+- No visible help option or guidance
+- Ambiguous next steps after completing an action
+- No confirmation that an action succeeded
+
+---
+
+## 3. Accessibility-Dependent User — "Sam"
+
+**Profile**: Uses screen reader (VoiceOver/NVDA), keyboard-only navigation. May have low vision, motor impairment, or cognitive differences.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Tabs through the interface linearly
+- Relies on ARIA labels and heading structure
+- Cannot see hover states or visual-only indicators
+- Needs adequate color contrast (4.5:1 minimum)
+- May use browser zoom up to 200%
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Can the entire primary flow be completed keyboard-only?
+- Are all interactive elements focusable with visible focus indicators?
+- Do images have meaningful alt text?
+- Is color contrast WCAG AA compliant (4.5:1 for text)?
+- Does the screen reader announce state changes (loading, success, errors)?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Click-only interactions with no keyboard alternative
+- Missing or invisible focus indicators
+- Meaning conveyed by color alone (red = error, green = success)
+- Unlabeled form fields or buttons
+- Time-limited actions without extension option
+- Custom components that break screen reader flow
+
+---
+
+## 4. Deliberate Stress Tester — "Riley"
+
+**Profile**: Methodical user who pushes interfaces beyond the happy path. Tests edge cases, tries unexpected inputs, and probes for gaps in the experience.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Tests edge cases intentionally (empty states, long strings, special characters)
+- Submits forms with unexpected data (emoji, RTL text, very long values)
+- Tries to break workflows by navigating backwards, refreshing mid-flow, or opening in multiple tabs
+- Looks for inconsistencies between what the UI promises and what actually happens
+- Documents problems methodically
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- What happens at the edges (0 items, 1000 items, very long text)?
+- Do error states recover gracefully or leave the UI in a broken state?
+- What happens on refresh mid-workflow? Is state preserved?
+- Are there features that appear to work but produce broken results?
+- How does the UI handle unexpected input (emoji, special chars, paste from Excel)?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Features that appear to work but silently fail or produce wrong results
+- Error handling that exposes technical details or leaves UI in a broken state
+- Empty states that show nothing useful ("No results" with no guidance)
+- Workflows that lose user data on refresh or navigation
+- Inconsistent behavior between similar interactions in different parts of the UI
+
+---
+
+## 5. Distracted Mobile User — "Casey"
+
+**Profile**: Using phone one-handed on the go. Frequently interrupted. Possibly on a slow connection.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Uses thumb only — prefers bottom-of-screen actions
+- Gets interrupted mid-flow and returns later
+- Switches between apps frequently
+- Has limited attention span and low patience
+- Types as little as possible, prefers taps and selections
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Are primary actions in the thumb zone (bottom half of screen)?
+- Is state preserved if the user leaves and returns?
+- Does it work on slow connections (3G)?
+- Can forms leverage autocomplete and smart defaults?
+- Are touch targets at least 44×44pt?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Important actions positioned at the top of the screen (unreachable by thumb)
+- No state persistence — progress lost on tab switch or interruption
+- Large text inputs required where selection would work
+- Heavy assets loading on every page (no lazy loading)
+- Tiny tap targets or targets too close together
+
+---
+
+## Selecting Personas
+
+Choose personas based on the interface type:
+
+| Interface Type | Primary Personas | Why |
+|---------------|-----------------|-----|
+| Landing page / marketing | Jordan, Riley, Casey | First impressions, trust, mobile |
+| Dashboard / admin | Alex, Sam | Power users, accessibility |
+| E-commerce / checkout | Casey, Riley, Jordan | Mobile, edge cases, clarity |
+| Onboarding flow | Jordan, Casey | Confusion, interruption |
+| Data-heavy / analytics | Alex, Sam | Efficiency, keyboard nav |
+| Form-heavy / wizard | Jordan, Sam, Casey | Clarity, accessibility, mobile |
+
+---
+
+## Project-Specific Personas
+
+If `RULES.md` contains a `## Design Context` section (generated by `teach-impeccable`), derive 1–2 additional personas from the audience and brand information:
+
+1. Read the target audience description
+2. Identify the primary user archetype not covered by the 5 predefined personas
+3. Create a persona following this template:
+
+```
+### [Role] — "[Name]"
+
+**Profile**: [2-3 key characteristics derived from Design Context]
+
+**Behaviors**: [3-4 specific behaviors based on the described audience]
+
+**Red Flags**: [3-4 things that would alienate this specific user type]
+```
+
+Only generate project-specific personas when real Design Context data is available. Don't invent audience details — use the 5 predefined personas when no context exists.
diff --git a/.trae/skills/frontend-design/reference/interaction-design.md b/.trae/skills/frontend-design/reference/interaction-design.md
index 10a77564b..19d6809a8 100644
--- a/.trae/skills/frontend-design/reference/interaction-design.md
+++ b/.trae/skills/frontend-design/reference/interaction-design.md
@@ -84,6 +84,78 @@ For tooltips, dropdowns, and non-modal overlays, use native popovers:
 
 **Benefits**: Light-dismiss (click outside closes), proper stacking, no z-index wars, accessible by default.
 
+## Dropdown & Overlay Positioning
+
+Dropdowns rendered with `position: absolute` inside a container that has `overflow: hidden` or `overflow: auto` will be clipped. This is the single most common dropdown bug in generated code.
+
+### CSS Anchor Positioning
+
+The modern solution uses the CSS Anchor Positioning API to tether an overlay to its trigger without JavaScript:
+
+```css
+.trigger {
+  anchor-name: --menu-trigger;
+}
+
+.dropdown {
+  position: fixed;
+  position-anchor: --menu-trigger;
+  position-area: block-end span-inline-end;
+  margin-top: 4px;
+}
+
+/* Flip above if no room below */
+@position-try --flip-above {
+  position-area: block-start span-inline-end;
+  margin-bottom: 4px;
+}
+```
+
+Because the dropdown uses `position: fixed`, it escapes any `overflow` clipping on ancestor elements. The `@position-try` block handles viewport edges automatically. **Browser support**: Chrome 125+, Edge 125+. Not yet in Firefox or Safari - use a fallback for those browsers.
+
+### Popover + Anchor Combo
+
+Combining the Popover API with anchor positioning gives you stacking, light-dismiss, accessibility, and correct positioning in one pattern:
+
+```html
+<button popovertarget="menu" class="trigger">Open</button>
+<div id="menu" popover class="dropdown">
+  <button>Option 1</button>
+  <button>Option 2</button>
+</div>
+```
+
+The `popover` attribute places the element in the **top layer**, which sits above all other content regardless of z-index or overflow. No portal needed.
+
+### Portal / Teleport Pattern
+
+In component frameworks, render the dropdown at the document root and position it with JavaScript:
+
+- **React**: `createPortal(dropdown, document.body)`
+- **Vue**: `<Teleport to="body">`
+- **Svelte**: Use a portal library or mount to `document.body`
+
+Calculate position from the trigger's `getBoundingClientRect()`, then apply `position: fixed` with `top` and `left` values. Recalculate on scroll and resize.
+
+### Fixed Positioning Fallback
+
+For browsers without anchor positioning support, `position: fixed` with manual coordinates avoids overflow clipping:
+
+```css
+.dropdown {
+  position: fixed;
+  /* top/left set via JS from trigger's getBoundingClientRect() */
+}
+```
+
+Check viewport boundaries before rendering. If the dropdown would overflow the bottom edge, flip it above the trigger. If it would overflow the right edge, align it to the trigger's right side instead.
+
+### Anti-Patterns
+
+- **`position: absolute` inside `overflow: hidden`** - The dropdown will be clipped. Use `position: fixed` or the top layer instead.
+- **Arbitrary z-index values** like `z-index: 9999` - Use a semantic z-index scale: `dropdown (100) -> sticky (200) -> modal-backdrop (300) -> modal (400) -> toast (500) -> tooltip (600)`.
+- **Rendering dropdown markup inline** without an escape hatch from the parent's stacking context. Either use `popover` (top layer), a portal, or `position: fixed`.
+
 ## Destructive Actions: Undo > Confirm
 
 **Undo is better than confirmation dialogs**—users click through confirmations mindlessly. Remove from UI immediately, show undo toast, actually delete after toast expires. Use confirmation only for truly irreversible actions (account deletion), high-cost actions, or batch operations.
diff --git a/source/skills/audit/SKILL.md b/source/skills/audit/SKILL.md
index 9840a9c48..2cbf118ff 100644
--- a/source/skills/audit/SKILL.md
+++ b/source/skills/audit/SKILL.md
@@ -1,126 +1,147 @@
 ---
 name: audit
-description: "Perform a comprehensive audit of interface quality across accessibility, performance, theming, and responsive design. Generates a prioritized report with severity ratings. Use when the user wants a design review, accessibility check, quality audit, or a full list of UI issues to fix."
+description: "Run technical quality checks across accessibility, performance, theming, responsive design, and anti-patterns. Generates a scored report with P0-P3 severity ratings and actionable plan. Use when the user wants an accessibility check, performance audit, or technical quality review."
 argument-hint: "[area (feature, page, component...)]"
 user-invocable: true
 ---
 
-Run systematic quality checks and generate a comprehensive audit report with prioritized issues and actionable recommendations. Don't fix issues - document them for other commands to address.
+## MANDATORY PREPARATION
 
-**First**: Invoke {{command_prefix}}frontend-design for design principles and anti-patterns.
+Invoke {{command_prefix}}frontend-design — it contains design principles, anti-patterns, and the **Context Gathering Protocol**. Follow the protocol before proceeding — if no design context exists yet, you MUST run {{command_prefix}}teach-impeccable first.
+
+---
+
+Run systematic **technical** quality checks and generate a comprehensive report. Don't fix issues — document them for other commands to address.
+
+This is a code-level audit, not a design critique. Check what's measurable and verifiable in the implementation.
 
 ## Diagnostic Scan
 
-Run comprehensive checks across multiple dimensions:
+Run comprehensive checks across 5 dimensions. Score each dimension 0-4 using the criteria below.
 
-1. **Accessibility (A11y)** - Check for:
-   - **Contrast issues**: Text contrast ratios < 4.5:1 (or 7:1 for AAA)
-   - **Missing ARIA**: Interactive elements without proper roles, labels, or states
-   - **Keyboard navigation**: Missing focus indicators, illogical tab order, keyboard traps
-   - **Semantic HTML**: Improper heading hierarchy, missing landmarks, divs instead of buttons
-   - **Alt text**: Missing or poor image descriptions
-   - **Form issues**: Inputs without labels, poor error messaging, missing required indicators
+### 1. Accessibility (A11y)
 
-2. **Performance** - Check for:
-   - **Layout thrashing**: Reading/writing layout properties in loops
-   - **Expensive animations**: Animating layout properties (width, height, top, left) instead of transform/opacity
-   - **Missing optimization**: Images without lazy loading, unoptimized assets, missing will-change
-   - **Bundle size**: Unnecessary imports, unused dependencies
-   - **Render performance**: Unnecessary re-renders, missing memoization
+**Check for**:
+- **Contrast issues**: Text contrast ratios < 4.5:1 (or 7:1 for AAA)
+- **Missing ARIA**: Interactive elements without proper roles, labels, or states
+- **Keyboard navigation**: Missing focus indicators, illogical tab order, keyboard traps
+- **Semantic HTML**: Improper heading hierarchy, missing landmarks, divs instead of buttons
+- **Alt text**: Missing or poor image descriptions
+- **Form issues**: Inputs without labels, poor error messaging, missing required indicators
 
-3. **Theming** - Check for:
-   - **Hard-coded colors**: Colors not using design tokens
-   - **Broken dark mode**: Missing dark mode variants, poor contrast in dark theme
-   - **Inconsistent tokens**: Using wrong tokens, mixing token types
-   - **Theme switching issues**: Values that don't update on theme change
+**Score 0-4**: 0=Inaccessible (fails WCAG A), 1=Major gaps (few ARIA labels, no keyboard nav), 2=Partial (some a11y effort, significant gaps), 3=Good (WCAG AA mostly met, minor gaps), 4=Excellent (WCAG AA fully met, approaches AAA)
 
-4. **Responsive Design** - Check for:
-   - **Fixed widths**: Hard-coded widths that break on mobile
-   - **Touch targets**: Interactive elements < 44x44px
-   - **Horizontal scroll**: Content overflow on narrow viewports
-   - **Text scaling**: Layouts that break when text size increases
-   - **Missing breakpoints**: No mobile/tablet variants
+### 2. Performance
 
-5. **Anti-Patterns (CRITICAL)** - Check against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill. Look for AI slop tells (AI color palette, gradient text, glassmorphism, hero metrics, card grids, generic fonts) and general design anti-patterns (gray on color, nested cards, bounce easing, redundant copy).
+**Check for**:
+- **Layout thrashing**: Reading/writing layout properties in loops
+- **Expensive animations**: Animating layout properties (width, height, top, left) instead of transform/opacity
+- **Missing optimization**: Images without lazy loading, unoptimized assets, missing will-change
+- **Bundle size**: Unnecessary imports, unused dependencies
+- **Render performance**: Unnecessary re-renders, missing memoization
 
-**CRITICAL**: This is an audit, not a fix. Document issues thoroughly with clear explanations of impact. Use other commands (normalize, optimize, harden, etc.) to fix issues after audit.
+**Score 0-4**: 0=Severe issues (layout thrash, unoptimized everything), 1=Major problems (no lazy loading, expensive animations), 2=Partial (some optimization, gaps remain), 3=Good (mostly optimized, minor improvements possible), 4=Excellent (fast, lean, well-optimized)
 
-## Generate Comprehensive Report
+### 3. Theming
 
-Create a detailed audit report with the following structure:
+**Check for**:
+- **Hard-coded colors**: Colors not using design tokens
+- **Broken dark mode**: Missing dark mode variants, poor contrast in dark theme
+- **Inconsistent tokens**: Using wrong tokens, mixing token types
+- **Theme switching issues**: Values that don't update on theme change
+
+**Score 0-4**: 0=No theming (hard-coded everything), 1=Minimal tokens (mostly hard-coded), 2=Partial (tokens exist but inconsistently used), 3=Good (tokens used, minor hard-coded values), 4=Excellent (full token system, dark mode works perfectly)
+
+### 4. Responsive Design
+
+**Check for**:
+- **Fixed widths**: Hard-coded widths that break on mobile
+- **Touch targets**: Interactive elements < 44x44px
+- **Horizontal scroll**: Content overflow on narrow viewports
+- **Text scaling**: Layouts that break when text size increases
+- **Missing breakpoints**: No mobile/tablet variants
+
+**Score 0-4**: 0=Desktop-only (breaks on mobile), 1=Major issues (some breakpoints, many failures), 2=Partial (works on mobile, rough edges), 3=Good (responsive, minor touch target or overflow issues), 4=Excellent (fluid, all viewports, proper touch targets)
+
+### 5. Anti-Patterns (CRITICAL)
+
+Check against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill. Look for AI slop tells (AI color palette, gradient text, glassmorphism, hero metrics, card grids, generic fonts) and general design anti-patterns (gray on color, nested cards, bounce easing, redundant copy).
+
+**Score 0-4**: 0=AI slop gallery (5+ tells), 1=Heavy AI aesthetic (3-4 tells), 2=Some tells (1-2 noticeable), 3=Mostly clean (subtle issues only), 4=No AI tells (distinctive, intentional design)
+
+## Generate Report
+
+### Audit Health Score
+
+| # | Dimension | Score | Key Finding |
+|---|-----------|-------|-------------|
+| 1 | Accessibility | ? | [most critical a11y issue or "--"] |
+| 2 | Performance | ? | |
+| 3 | Responsive Design | ? | |
+| 4 | Theming | ? | |
+| 5 | Anti-Patterns | ? | |
+| **Total** | | **??/20** | **[Rating band]** |
+
+**Rating bands**: 18-20 Excellent (minor polish), 14-17 Good (address weak dimensions), 10-13 Acceptable (significant work needed), 6-9 Poor (major overhaul), 0-5 Critical (fundamental issues)
 
 ### Anti-Patterns Verdict
-**Start here.** Pass/fail: Does this look AI-generated? List specific tells from the skill's Anti-Patterns section. Be brutally honest.
+**Start here.** Pass/fail: Does this look AI-generated? List specific tells. Be brutally honest.
 
 ### Executive Summary
-- Total issues found (count by severity)
-- Most critical issues (top 3-5)
-- Overall quality score (if applicable)
+- Audit Health Score: **??/20** ([rating band])
+- Total issues found (count by severity: P0/P1/P2/P3)
+- Top 3-5 critical issues
 - Recommended next steps
 
 ### Detailed Findings by Severity
 
+Tag every issue with **P0-P3 severity**:
+- **P0 Blocking**: Prevents task completion — fix immediately
+- **P1 Major**: Significant difficulty or WCAG AA violation — fix before release
+- **P2 Minor**: Annoyance, workaround exists — fix in next pass
+- **P3 Polish**: Nice-to-fix, no real user impact — fix if time permits
+
 For each issue, document:
-- **Location**: Where the issue occurs (component, file, line)
-- **Severity**: Critical / High / Medium / Low
-- **Category**: Accessibility / Performance / Theming / Responsive
-- **Description**: What the issue is
+- **[P?] Issue name**
+- **Location**: Component, file, line
+- **Category**: Accessibility / Performance / Theming / Responsive / Anti-Pattern
 - **Impact**: How it affects users
 - **WCAG/Standard**: Which standard it violates (if applicable)
 - **Recommendation**: How to fix it
-- **Suggested command**: Which command to use (prefer: {{available_commands}} — or other installed skills you're sure exist)
-
-#### Critical Issues
-[Issues that block core functionality or violate WCAG A]
-
-#### High-Severity Issues  
-[Significant usability/accessibility impact, WCAG AA violations]
-
-#### Medium-Severity Issues
-[Quality issues, WCAG AAA violations, performance concerns]
-
-#### Low-Severity Issues
-[Minor inconsistencies, optimization opportunities]
+- **Suggested command**: Which command to use (prefer: {{available_commands}})
 
 ### Patterns & Systemic Issues
 
-Identify recurring problems:
+Identify recurring problems that indicate systemic gaps rather than one-off mistakes:
 - "Hard-coded colors appear in 15+ components, should use design tokens"
 - "Touch targets consistently too small (<44px) throughout mobile experience"
-- "Missing focus indicators on all custom interactive components"
 
 ### Positive Findings
 
-Note what's working well:
-- Good practices to maintain
-- Exemplary implementations to replicate elsewhere
+Note what's working well — good practices to maintain and replicate.
 
-### Recommendations by Priority
+## Recommended Actions
 
-Create actionable plan:
-1. **Immediate**: Critical blockers to fix first
-2. **Short-term**: High-severity issues (this sprint)
-3. **Medium-term**: Quality improvements (next sprint)
-4. **Long-term**: Nice-to-haves and optimizations
+List recommended commands in priority order (P0 first, then P1, then P2):
 
-### Suggested Commands for Fixes
+1. **[P?] `{{command_prefix}}command-name`** — Brief description (specific context from audit findings)
+2. **[P?] `{{command_prefix}}command-name`** — Brief description (specific context)
 
-Map issues to available commands. Prefer these: {{available_commands}}. You may also suggest other installed skills you're sure exist, but never invent commands.
+**Rules**: Only recommend commands from: {{available_commands}}. Map findings to the most appropriate command. End with `{{command_prefix}}polish` as the final step if any fixes were recommended.
 
-Examples:
-- "Use `/normalize` to align with design system (addresses N theming issues)"
-- "Use `/optimize` to improve performance (addresses N performance issues)"
-- "Use `/harden` to improve resilience (addresses N edge cases)"
+After presenting the summary, tell the user:
 
-**IMPORTANT**: Be thorough but actionable. Too many low-priority issues creates noise. Focus on what actually matters.
+> You can ask me to run these one at a time, all at once, or in any order you prefer.
+>
+> Re-run `{{command_prefix}}audit` after fixes to see your score improve.
+
+**IMPORTANT**: Be thorough but actionable. Too many P3 issues creates noise. Focus on what actually matters.
 
 **NEVER**:
 - Report issues without explaining impact (why does this matter?)
-- Mix severity levels inconsistently
-- Skip positive findings (celebrate what works)
 - Provide generic recommendations (be specific and actionable)
-- Forget to prioritize (everything can't be critical)
+- Skip positive findings (celebrate what works)
+- Forget to prioritize (everything can't be P0)
 - Report false positives without verification
 
-Remember: You're a quality auditor with exceptional attention to detail. Document systematically, prioritize ruthlessly, and provide clear paths to improvement. A good audit makes fixing easy.
-
+Remember: You're a technical quality auditor. Document systematically, prioritize ruthlessly, cite specific code locations, and provide clear paths to improvement.
diff --git a/source/skills/critique/SKILL.md b/source/skills/critique/SKILL.md
index 086ed8888..f8ae5c428 100644
--- a/source/skills/critique/SKILL.md
+++ b/source/skills/critique/SKILL.md
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 name: critique
-description: "Evaluate design effectiveness from a UX perspective. Assesses visual hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, and overall design quality with actionable feedback. Use when the user asks to review, critique, evaluate, audit, or give feedback on a design, UI, or component."
+description: "Evaluate design from a UX perspective, assessing visual hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, cognitive load, and overall quality with quantitative scoring, persona-based testing, and actionable feedback. Use when the user asks to review, critique, evaluate, or give feedback on a design or component."
 argument-hint: "[area (feature, page, component...)]"
 user-invocable: true
 ---
@@ -11,9 +11,9 @@ Invoke {{command_prefix}}frontend-design — it contains design principles, anti
 
 ---
 
-Conduct a holistic design critique, evaluating whether the interface actually works—not just technically, but as a designed experience. Think like a design director giving feedback.
+Conduct a holistic design critique, evaluating whether the interface actually works — not just technically, but as a designed experience. Think like a design director giving feedback.
 
-## Design Critique
+## Phase 1: Design Critique
 
 Evaluate the interface across these dimensions:
 
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ Evaluate the interface across these dimensions:
 
 **This is the most important check.** Does this look like every other AI-generated interface from 2024-2025?
 
-Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill—they are the fingerprints of AI-generated work. Check for the AI color palette, gradient text, dark mode with glowing accents, glassmorphism, hero metric layouts, identical card grids, generic fonts, and all other tells.
+Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design skill — they are the fingerprints of AI-generated work. Check for the AI color palette, gradient text, dark mode with glowing accents, glassmorphism, hero metric layouts, identical card grids, generic fonts, and all other tells.
 
 **The test**: If you showed this to someone and said "AI made this," would they believe you immediately? If yes, that's the problem.
 
@@ -31,17 +31,23 @@ Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design sk
 - Do size, color, and position communicate importance correctly?
 - Is there visual competition between elements that should have different weights?
 
-### 3. Information Architecture
+### 3. Information Architecture & Cognitive Load
+> *Consult [cognitive-load](reference/cognitive-load.md) for the working memory rule and 8-item checklist*
 - Is the structure intuitive? Would a new user understand the organization?
 - Is related content grouped logically?
-- Are there too many choices at once? (cognitive overload)
+- Are there too many choices at once? Count visible options at each decision point — if >4, flag it
 - Is the navigation clear and predictable?
+- **Progressive disclosure**: Is complexity revealed only when needed, or dumped on the user upfront?
+- **Run the 8-item cognitive load checklist** from the reference. Report failure count: 0–1 = low (good), 2–3 = moderate, 4+ = critical.
 
-### 4. Emotional Resonance
+### 4. Emotional Journey
 - What emotion does this interface evoke? Is that intentional?
 - Does it match the brand personality?
-- Does it feel trustworthy, approachable, premium, playful—whatever it should feel?
+- Does it feel trustworthy, approachable, premium, playful — whatever it should feel?
 - Would the target user feel "this is for me"?
+- **Peak-end rule**: Is the most intense moment positive? Does the experience end well (confirmation, celebration, clear next step)?
+- **Emotional valleys**: Check for onboarding frustration, error cliffs, feature discovery gaps, or anxiety spikes at high-stakes moments (payment, delete, commit)
+- **Interventions at negative moments**: Are there design interventions where users are likely to feel frustrated or anxious? (progress indicators, reassurance copy, undo options, social proof)
 
 ### 5. Discoverability & Affordance
 - Are interactive elements obviously interactive?
@@ -65,7 +71,7 @@ Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design sk
 - Is color used to communicate, not just decorate?
 - Does the palette feel cohesive?
 - Are accent colors drawing attention to the right things?
-- Does it work for colorblind users? (not just technically—does meaning still come through?)
+- Does it work for colorblind users? (not just technically — does meaning still come through?)
 
 ### 9. States & Edge Cases
 - Empty states: Do they guide users toward action, or just say "nothing here"?
@@ -79,41 +85,117 @@ Review the design against ALL the **DON'T** guidelines in the frontend-design sk
 - Are labels and buttons unambiguous?
 - Does error copy help users fix the problem?
 
-## Generate Critique Report
+## Phase 2: Present Findings
 
 Structure your feedback as a design director would:
 
+### Design Health Score
+> *Consult [heuristics-scoring](reference/heuristics-scoring.md)*
+
+Score each of Nielsen's 10 heuristics 0–4. Present as a table:
+
+| # | Heuristic | Score | Key Issue |
+|---|-----------|-------|-----------|
+| 1 | Visibility of System Status | ? | [specific finding or "—" if solid] |
+| 2 | Match System / Real World | ? | |
+| 3 | User Control and Freedom | ? | |
+| 4 | Consistency and Standards | ? | |
+| 5 | Error Prevention | ? | |
+| 6 | Recognition Rather Than Recall | ? | |
+| 7 | Flexibility and Efficiency | ? | |
+| 8 | Aesthetic and Minimalist Design | ? | |
+| 9 | Error Recovery | ? | |
+| 10 | Help and Documentation | ? | |
+| **Total** | | **??/40** | **[Rating band]** |
+
+Be honest with scores. A 4 means genuinely excellent. Most real interfaces score 20–32.
+
 ### Anti-Patterns Verdict
 **Start here.** Pass/fail: Does this look AI-generated? List specific tells from the skill's Anti-Patterns section. Be brutally honest.
 
 ### Overall Impression
-A brief gut reaction—what works, what doesn't, and the single biggest opportunity.
+A brief gut reaction — what works, what doesn't, and the single biggest opportunity.
 
 ### What's Working
-Highlight 2-3 things done well. Be specific about why they work.
+Highlight 2–3 things done well. Be specific about why they work.
 
 ### Priority Issues
-The 3-5 most impactful design problems, ordered by importance:
+The 3–5 most impactful design problems, ordered by importance.
 
-For each issue:
-- **What**: Name the problem clearly
+For each issue, tag with **P0–P3 severity** (consult [heuristics-scoring](reference/heuristics-scoring.md) for severity definitions):
+- **[P?] What**: Name the problem clearly
 - **Why it matters**: How this hurts users or undermines goals
 - **Fix**: What to do about it (be concrete)
-- **Command**: Which command to use (prefer: {{available_commands}} — or other installed skills you're sure exist)
+- **Suggested command**: Which command could address this (from: {{available_commands}})
+
+### Persona Red Flags
+> *Consult [personas](reference/personas.md)*
+
+Auto-select 2–3 personas most relevant to this interface type (use the selection table in the reference). If `{{config_file}}` contains a `## Design Context` section from `teach-impeccable`, also generate 1–2 project-specific personas from the audience/brand info.
+
+For each selected persona, walk through the primary user action and list specific red flags found:
+
+**Alex (Power User)**: No keyboard shortcuts detected. Form requires 8 clicks for primary action. Forced modal onboarding. ⚠️ High abandonment risk.
+
+**Jordan (First-Timer)**: Icon-only nav in sidebar. Technical jargon in error messages ("404 Not Found"). No visible help. ⚠️ Will abandon at step 2.
+
+Be specific — name the exact elements and interactions that fail each persona. Don't write generic persona descriptions; write what broke for them.
 
 ### Minor Observations
 Quick notes on smaller issues worth addressing.
 
-### Questions to Consider
-Provocative questions that might unlock better solutions:
-- "What if the primary action were more prominent?"
-- "Does this need to feel this complex?"
-- "What would a confident version of this look like?"
-
 **Remember**:
-- Be direct—vague feedback wastes everyone's time
-- Be specific—"the submit button" not "some elements"
+- Be direct — vague feedback wastes everyone's time
+- Be specific — "the submit button" not "some elements"
 - Say what's wrong AND why it matters to users
 - Give concrete suggestions, not just "consider exploring..."
-- Prioritize ruthlessly—if everything is important, nothing is
-- Don't soften criticism—developers need honest feedback to ship great design
+- Prioritize ruthlessly — if everything is important, nothing is
+- Don't soften criticism — developers need honest feedback to ship great design
+
+## Phase 3: Ask the User
+
+**After presenting findings**, use targeted questions based on what was actually found. {{ask_instruction}} These answers will shape the action plan.
+
+Ask questions along these lines (adapt to the specific findings — do NOT ask generic questions):
+
+1. **Priority direction**: Based on the issues found, ask which category matters most to the user right now. For example: "I found problems with visual hierarchy, color usage, and information overload. Which area should we tackle first?" Offer the top 2–3 issue categories as options.
+
+2. **Design intent**: If the critique found a tonal mismatch, ask whether it was intentional. For example: "The interface feels clinical and corporate. Is that the intended tone, or should it feel warmer/bolder/more playful?" Offer 2–3 tonal directions as options based on what would fix the issues found.
+
+3. **Scope**: Ask how much the user wants to take on. For example: "I found N issues. Want to address everything, or focus on the top 3?" Offer scope options like "Top 3 only", "All issues", "Critical issues only".
+
+4. **Constraints** (optional — only ask if relevant): If the findings touch many areas, ask if anything is off-limits. For example: "Should any sections stay as-is?" This prevents the plan from touching things the user considers done.
+
+**Rules for questions**:
+- Every question must reference specific findings from Phase 2 — never ask generic "who is your audience?" questions
+- Keep it to 2–4 questions maximum — respect the user's time
+- Offer concrete options, not open-ended prompts
+- If findings are straightforward (e.g., only 1–2 clear issues), skip questions and go directly to Phase 4
+
+## Phase 4: Recommended Actions
+
+**After receiving the user's answers**, present a prioritized action summary reflecting the user's priorities and scope from Phase 3.
+
+### Action Summary
+
+List recommended commands in priority order, based on the user's answers:
+
+1. **`{{command_prefix}}command-name`** — Brief description of what to fix (specific context from critique findings)
+2. **`{{command_prefix}}command-name`** — Brief description (specific context)
+...
+
+**Rules for recommendations**:
+- Only recommend commands from: {{available_commands}}
+- Order by the user's stated priorities first, then by impact
+- Each item's description should carry enough context that the command knows what to focus on
+- Map each Priority Issue to the appropriate command
+- Skip commands that would address zero issues
+- If the user chose a limited scope, only include items within that scope
+- If the user marked areas as off-limits, exclude commands that would touch those areas
+- End with `{{command_prefix}}polish` as the final step if any fixes were recommended
+
+After presenting the summary, tell the user:
+
+> You can ask me to run these one at a time, all at once, or in any order you prefer.
+>
+> Re-run `{{command_prefix}}critique` after fixes to see your score improve.
diff --git a/source/skills/critique/reference/cognitive-load.md b/source/skills/critique/reference/cognitive-load.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..313df166b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/source/skills/critique/reference/cognitive-load.md
@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+# Cognitive Load Assessment
+
+Cognitive load is the total mental effort required to use an interface. Overloaded users make mistakes, get frustrated, and leave. This reference helps identify and fix cognitive overload.
+
+---
+
+## Three Types of Cognitive Load
+
+### Intrinsic Load — The Task Itself
+Complexity inherent to what the user is trying to do. You can't eliminate this, but you can structure it.
+
+**Manage it by**:
+- Breaking complex tasks into discrete steps
+- Providing scaffolding (templates, defaults, examples)
+- Progressive disclosure — show what's needed now, hide the rest
+- Grouping related decisions together
+
+### Extraneous Load — Bad Design
+Mental effort caused by poor design choices. **Eliminate this ruthlessly** — it's pure waste.
+
+**Common sources**:
+- Confusing navigation that requires mental mapping
+- Unclear labels that force users to guess meaning
+- Visual clutter competing for attention
+- Inconsistent patterns that prevent learning
+- Unnecessary steps between user intent and result
+
+### Germane Load — Learning Effort
+Mental effort spent building understanding. This is *good* cognitive load — it leads to mastery.
+
+**Support it by**:
+- Progressive disclosure that reveals complexity gradually
+- Consistent patterns that reward learning
+- Feedback that confirms correct understanding
+- Onboarding that teaches through action, not walls of text
+
+---
+
+## Cognitive Load Checklist
+
+Evaluate the interface against these 8 items:
+
+- [ ] **Single focus**: Can the user complete their primary task without distraction from competing elements?
+- [ ] **Chunking**: Is information presented in digestible groups (≤4 items per group)?
+- [ ] **Grouping**: Are related items visually grouped together (proximity, borders, shared background)?
+- [ ] **Visual hierarchy**: Is it immediately clear what's most important on the screen?
+- [ ] **One thing at a time**: Can the user focus on a single decision before moving to the next?
+- [ ] **Minimal choices**: Are decisions simplified (≤4 visible options at any decision point)?
+- [ ] **Working memory**: Does the user need to remember information from a previous screen to act on the current one?
+- [ ] **Progressive disclosure**: Is complexity revealed only when the user needs it?
+
+**Scoring**: Count the failed items. 0–1 failures = low cognitive load (good). 2–3 = moderate (address soon). 4+ = high cognitive load (critical fix needed).
+
+---
+
+## The Working Memory Rule
+
+**Humans can hold ≤4 items in working memory at once** (Miller's Law revised by Cowan, 2001).
+
+At any decision point, count the number of distinct options, actions, or pieces of information a user must simultaneously consider:
+- **≤4 items**: Within working memory limits — manageable
+- **5–7 items**: Pushing the boundary — consider grouping or progressive disclosure
+- **8+ items**: Overloaded — users will skip, misclick, or abandon
+
+**Practical applications**:
+- Navigation menus: ≤5 top-level items (group the rest under clear categories)
+- Form sections: ≤4 fields visible per group before a visual break
+- Action buttons: 1 primary, 1–2 secondary, group the rest in a menu
+- Dashboard widgets: ≤4 key metrics visible without scrolling
+- Pricing tiers: ≤3 options (more causes analysis paralysis)
+
+---
+
+## Common Cognitive Load Violations
+
+### 1. The Wall of Options
+**Problem**: Presenting 10+ choices at once with no hierarchy.
+**Fix**: Group into categories, highlight recommended, use progressive disclosure.
+
+### 2. The Memory Bridge
+**Problem**: User must remember info from step 1 to complete step 3.
+**Fix**: Keep relevant context visible, or repeat it where it's needed.
+
+### 3. The Hidden Navigation
+**Problem**: User must build a mental map of where things are.
+**Fix**: Always show current location (breadcrumbs, active states, progress indicators).
+
+### 4. The Jargon Barrier
+**Problem**: Technical or domain language forces translation effort.
+**Fix**: Use plain language. If domain terms are unavoidable, define them inline.
+
+### 5. The Visual Noise Floor
+**Problem**: Every element has the same visual weight — nothing stands out.
+**Fix**: Establish clear hierarchy: one primary element, 2–3 secondary, everything else muted.
+
+### 6. The Inconsistent Pattern
+**Problem**: Similar actions work differently in different places.
+**Fix**: Standardize interaction patterns. Same type of action = same type of UI.
+
+### 7. The Multi-Task Demand
+**Problem**: Interface requires processing multiple simultaneous inputs (reading + deciding + navigating).
+**Fix**: Sequence the steps. Let the user do one thing at a time.
+
+### 8. The Context Switch
+**Problem**: User must jump between screens/tabs/modals to gather info for a single decision.
+**Fix**: Co-locate the information needed for each decision. Reduce back-and-forth.
diff --git a/source/skills/critique/reference/heuristics-scoring.md b/source/skills/critique/reference/heuristics-scoring.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..fd5b1b08b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/source/skills/critique/reference/heuristics-scoring.md
@@ -0,0 +1,234 @@
+# Heuristics Scoring Guide
+
+Score each of Nielsen's 10 Usability Heuristics on a 0–4 scale. Be honest — a 4 means genuinely excellent, not "good enough."
+
+## Nielsen's 10 Heuristics
+
+### 1. Visibility of System Status
+
+Keep users informed about what's happening through timely, appropriate feedback.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Loading indicators during async operations
+- Confirmation of user actions (save, submit, delete)
+- Progress indicators for multi-step processes
+- Current location in navigation (breadcrumbs, active states)
+- Form validation feedback (inline, not just on submit)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | No feedback — user is guessing what happened |
+| 1 | Rare feedback — most actions produce no visible response |
+| 2 | Partial — some states communicated, major gaps remain |
+| 3 | Good — most operations give clear feedback, minor gaps |
+| 4 | Excellent — every action confirms, progress is always visible |
+
+### 2. Match Between System and Real World
+
+Speak the user's language. Follow real-world conventions. Information appears in natural, logical order.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Familiar terminology (no unexplained jargon)
+- Logical information order matching user expectations
+- Recognizable icons and metaphors
+- Domain-appropriate language for the target audience
+- Natural reading flow (left-to-right, top-to-bottom priority)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Pure tech jargon, alien to users |
+| 1 | Mostly confusing — requires domain expertise to navigate |
+| 2 | Mixed — some plain language, some jargon leaks through |
+| 3 | Mostly natural — occasional term needs context |
+| 4 | Speaks the user's language fluently throughout |
+
+### 3. User Control and Freedom
+
+Users need a clear "emergency exit" from unwanted states without extended dialogue.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Undo/redo functionality
+- Cancel buttons on forms and modals
+- Clear navigation back to safety (home, previous)
+- Easy way to clear filters, search, selections
+- Escape from long or multi-step processes
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Users get trapped — no way out without refreshing |
+| 1 | Difficult exits — must find obscure paths to escape |
+| 2 | Some exits — main flows have escape, edge cases don't |
+| 3 | Good control — users can exit and undo most actions |
+| 4 | Full control — undo, cancel, back, and escape everywhere |
+
+### 4. Consistency and Standards
+
+Users shouldn't wonder whether different words, situations, or actions mean the same thing.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Consistent terminology throughout the interface
+- Same actions produce same results everywhere
+- Platform conventions followed (standard UI patterns)
+- Visual consistency (colors, typography, spacing, components)
+- Consistent interaction patterns (same gesture = same behavior)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Inconsistent everywhere — feels like different products stitched together |
+| 1 | Many inconsistencies — similar things look/behave differently |
+| 2 | Partially consistent — main flows match, details diverge |
+| 3 | Mostly consistent — occasional deviation, nothing confusing |
+| 4 | Fully consistent — cohesive system, predictable behavior |
+
+### 5. Error Prevention
+
+Better than good error messages is a design that prevents problems in the first place.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Confirmation before destructive actions (delete, overwrite)
+- Constraints preventing invalid input (date pickers, dropdowns)
+- Smart defaults that reduce errors
+- Clear labels that prevent misunderstanding
+- Autosave and draft recovery
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Errors easy to make — no guardrails anywhere |
+| 1 | Few safeguards — some inputs validated, most aren't |
+| 2 | Partial prevention — common errors caught, edge cases slip |
+| 3 | Good prevention — most error paths blocked proactively |
+| 4 | Excellent — errors nearly impossible through smart constraints |
+
+### 6. Recognition Rather Than Recall
+
+Minimize memory load. Make objects, actions, and options visible or easily retrievable.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Visible options (not buried in hidden menus)
+- Contextual help when needed (tooltips, inline hints)
+- Recent items and history
+- Autocomplete and suggestions
+- Labels on icons (not icon-only navigation)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Heavy memorization — users must remember paths and commands |
+| 1 | Mostly recall — many hidden features, few visible cues |
+| 2 | Some aids — main actions visible, secondary features hidden |
+| 3 | Good recognition — most things discoverable, few memory demands |
+| 4 | Everything discoverable — users never need to memorize |
+
+### 7. Flexibility and Efficiency of Use
+
+Accelerators — invisible to novices — speed up expert interaction.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Keyboard shortcuts for common actions
+- Customizable interface elements
+- Recent items and favorites
+- Bulk/batch actions
+- Power user features that don't complicate the basics
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | One rigid path — no shortcuts or alternatives |
+| 1 | Limited flexibility — few alternatives to the main path |
+| 2 | Some shortcuts — basic keyboard support, limited bulk actions |
+| 3 | Good accelerators — keyboard nav, some customization |
+| 4 | Highly flexible — multiple paths, power features, customizable |
+
+### 8. Aesthetic and Minimalist Design
+
+Interfaces should not contain irrelevant or rarely needed information. Every element should serve a purpose.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Only necessary information visible at each step
+- Clear visual hierarchy directing attention
+- Purposeful use of color and emphasis
+- No decorative clutter competing for attention
+- Focused, uncluttered layouts
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Overwhelming — everything competes for attention equally |
+| 1 | Cluttered — too much noise, hard to find what matters |
+| 2 | Some clutter — main content clear, periphery noisy |
+| 3 | Mostly clean — focused design, minor visual noise |
+| 4 | Perfectly minimal — every element earns its pixel |
+
+### 9. Help Users Recognize, Diagnose, and Recover from Errors
+
+Error messages should use plain language, precisely indicate the problem, and constructively suggest a solution.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Plain language error messages (no error codes for users)
+- Specific problem identification ("Email is missing @" not "Invalid input")
+- Actionable recovery suggestions
+- Errors displayed near the source of the problem
+- Non-blocking error handling (don't wipe the form)
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | Cryptic errors — codes, jargon, or no message at all |
+| 1 | Vague errors — "Something went wrong" with no guidance |
+| 2 | Clear but unhelpful — names the problem but not the fix |
+| 3 | Clear with suggestions — identifies problem and offers next steps |
+| 4 | Perfect recovery — pinpoints issue, suggests fix, preserves user work |
+
+### 10. Help and Documentation
+
+Even if the system is usable without docs, help should be easy to find, task-focused, and concise.
+
+**Check for**:
+- Searchable help or documentation
+- Contextual help (tooltips, inline hints, guided tours)
+- Task-focused organization (not feature-organized)
+- Concise, scannable content
+- Easy access without leaving current context
+
+**Scoring**:
+| Score | Criteria |
+|-------|----------|
+| 0 | No help available anywhere |
+| 1 | Help exists but hard to find or irrelevant |
+| 2 | Basic help — FAQ or docs exist, not contextual |
+| 3 | Good documentation — searchable, mostly task-focused |
+| 4 | Excellent contextual help — right info at the right moment |
+
+---
+
+## Score Summary
+
+**Total possible**: 40 points (10 heuristics × 4 max)
+
+| Score Range | Rating | What It Means |
+|-------------|--------|---------------|
+| 36–40 | Excellent | Minor polish only — ship it |
+| 28–35 | Good | Address weak areas, solid foundation |
+| 20–27 | Acceptable | Significant improvements needed before users are happy |
+| 12–19 | Poor | Major UX overhaul required — core experience broken |
+| 0–11 | Critical | Redesign needed — unusable in current state |
+
+---
+
+## Issue Severity (P0–P3)
+
+Tag each individual issue found during scoring with a priority level:
+
+| Priority | Name | Description | Action |
+|----------|------|-------------|--------|
+| **P0** | Blocking | Prevents task completion entirely | Fix immediately — this is a showstopper |
+| **P1** | Major | Causes significant difficulty or confusion | Fix before release |
+| **P2** | Minor | Annoyance, but workaround exists | Fix in next pass |
+| **P3** | Polish | Nice-to-fix, no real user impact | Fix if time permits |
+
+**Tip**: If you're unsure between two levels, ask: "Would a user contact support about this?" If yes, it's at least P1.
diff --git a/source/skills/critique/reference/personas.md b/source/skills/critique/reference/personas.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..0163c265d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/source/skills/critique/reference/personas.md
@@ -0,0 +1,178 @@
+# Persona-Based Design Testing
+
+Test the interface through the eyes of 5 distinct user archetypes. Each persona exposes different failure modes that a single "design director" perspective would miss.
+
+**How to use**: Select 2–3 personas most relevant to the interface being critiqued. Walk through the primary user action as each persona. Report specific red flags — not generic concerns.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Impatient Power User — "Alex"
+
+**Profile**: Expert with similar products. Expects efficiency, hates hand-holding. Will find shortcuts or leave.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Skips all onboarding and instructions
+- Looks for keyboard shortcuts immediately
+- Tries to bulk-select, batch-edit, and automate
+- Gets frustrated by required steps that feel unnecessary
+- Abandons if anything feels slow or patronizing
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Can Alex complete the core task in under 60 seconds?
+- Are there keyboard shortcuts for common actions?
+- Can onboarding be skipped entirely?
+- Do modals have keyboard dismiss (Esc)?
+- Is there a "power user" path (shortcuts, bulk actions)?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Forced tutorials or unskippable onboarding
+- No keyboard navigation for primary actions
+- Slow animations that can't be skipped
+- One-item-at-a-time workflows where batch would be natural
+- Redundant confirmation steps for low-risk actions
+
+---
+
+## 2. Confused First-Timer — "Jordan"
+
+**Profile**: Never used this type of product. Needs guidance at every step. Will abandon rather than figure it out.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Reads all instructions carefully
+- Hesitates before clicking anything unfamiliar
+- Looks for help or support constantly
+- Misunderstands jargon and abbreviations
+- Takes the most literal interpretation of any label
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Is the first action obviously clear within 5 seconds?
+- Are all icons labeled with text?
+- Is there contextual help at decision points?
+- Does terminology assume prior knowledge?
+- Is there a clear "back" or "undo" at every step?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Icon-only navigation with no labels
+- Technical jargon without explanation
+- No visible help option or guidance
+- Ambiguous next steps after completing an action
+- No confirmation that an action succeeded
+
+---
+
+## 3. Accessibility-Dependent User — "Sam"
+
+**Profile**: Uses screen reader (VoiceOver/NVDA), keyboard-only navigation. May have low vision, motor impairment, or cognitive differences.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Tabs through the interface linearly
+- Relies on ARIA labels and heading structure
+- Cannot see hover states or visual-only indicators
+- Needs adequate color contrast (4.5:1 minimum)
+- May use browser zoom up to 200%
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Can the entire primary flow be completed keyboard-only?
+- Are all interactive elements focusable with visible focus indicators?
+- Do images have meaningful alt text?
+- Is color contrast WCAG AA compliant (4.5:1 for text)?
+- Does the screen reader announce state changes (loading, success, errors)?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Click-only interactions with no keyboard alternative
+- Missing or invisible focus indicators
+- Meaning conveyed by color alone (red = error, green = success)
+- Unlabeled form fields or buttons
+- Time-limited actions without extension option
+- Custom components that break screen reader flow
+
+---
+
+## 4. Deliberate Stress Tester — "Riley"
+
+**Profile**: Methodical user who pushes interfaces beyond the happy path. Tests edge cases, tries unexpected inputs, and probes for gaps in the experience.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Tests edge cases intentionally (empty states, long strings, special characters)
+- Submits forms with unexpected data (emoji, RTL text, very long values)
+- Tries to break workflows by navigating backwards, refreshing mid-flow, or opening in multiple tabs
+- Looks for inconsistencies between what the UI promises and what actually happens
+- Documents problems methodically
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- What happens at the edges (0 items, 1000 items, very long text)?
+- Do error states recover gracefully or leave the UI in a broken state?
+- What happens on refresh mid-workflow? Is state preserved?
+- Are there features that appear to work but produce broken results?
+- How does the UI handle unexpected input (emoji, special chars, paste from Excel)?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Features that appear to work but silently fail or produce wrong results
+- Error handling that exposes technical details or leaves UI in a broken state
+- Empty states that show nothing useful ("No results" with no guidance)
+- Workflows that lose user data on refresh or navigation
+- Inconsistent behavior between similar interactions in different parts of the UI
+
+---
+
+## 5. Distracted Mobile User — "Casey"
+
+**Profile**: Using phone one-handed on the go. Frequently interrupted. Possibly on a slow connection.
+
+**Behaviors**:
+- Uses thumb only — prefers bottom-of-screen actions
+- Gets interrupted mid-flow and returns later
+- Switches between apps frequently
+- Has limited attention span and low patience
+- Types as little as possible, prefers taps and selections
+
+**Test Questions**:
+- Are primary actions in the thumb zone (bottom half of screen)?
+- Is state preserved if the user leaves and returns?
+- Does it work on slow connections (3G)?
+- Can forms leverage autocomplete and smart defaults?
+- Are touch targets at least 44×44pt?
+
+**Red Flags** (report these specifically):
+- Important actions positioned at the top of the screen (unreachable by thumb)
+- No state persistence — progress lost on tab switch or interruption
+- Large text inputs required where selection would work
+- Heavy assets loading on every page (no lazy loading)
+- Tiny tap targets or targets too close together
+
+---
+
+## Selecting Personas
+
+Choose personas based on the interface type:
+
+| Interface Type | Primary Personas | Why |
+|---------------|-----------------|-----|
+| Landing page / marketing | Jordan, Riley, Casey | First impressions, trust, mobile |
+| Dashboard / admin | Alex, Sam | Power users, accessibility |
+| E-commerce / checkout | Casey, Riley, Jordan | Mobile, edge cases, clarity |
+| Onboarding flow | Jordan, Casey | Confusion, interruption |
+| Data-heavy / analytics | Alex, Sam | Efficiency, keyboard nav |
+| Form-heavy / wizard | Jordan, Sam, Casey | Clarity, accessibility, mobile |
+
+---
+
+## Project-Specific Personas
+
+If `{{config_file}}` contains a `## Design Context` section (generated by `teach-impeccable`), derive 1–2 additional personas from the audience and brand information:
+
+1. Read the target audience description
+2. Identify the primary user archetype not covered by the 5 predefined personas
+3. Create a persona following this template:
+
+```
+### [Role] — "[Name]"
+
+**Profile**: [2-3 key characteristics derived from Design Context]
+
+**Behaviors**: [3-4 specific behaviors based on the described audience]
+
+**Red Flags**: [3-4 things that would alienate this specific user type]
+```
+
+Only generate project-specific personas when real Design Context data is available. Don't invent audience details — use the 5 predefined personas when no context exists.