pbakaus_impeccable/source/commands/critique.md

name, description, context, args

name	description	context	args
critique	Evaluate design effectiveness from a UX perspective. Assesses visual hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, and overall design quality with actionable feedback.	fork	name description required area The feature or area to critique (optional) false

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.

First: Use the frontend-design skill for design principles and anti-patterns.

Design Critique

Evaluate the interface across these dimensions:

1. AI Slop Detection (CRITICAL)

This is the most important check. Does this look like every other AI-generated interface from 2024-2025? Watch for these tells:

• The AI color palette: Cyan-on-dark, purple-to-blue gradients, neon accents on dark backgrounds. These combinations have become a fingerprint for AI-generated work.
• Gradient text for "impact": Especially on metrics or headings. It's decorative rather than meaningful.
• Default dark mode: AI loves dark themes with glowing accents because it looks "cool" without requiring actual design decisions.
• Monospace typography: Lazy shorthand for "this is technical/for developers."
• Glassmorphism everywhere: Blur effects, glass cards, glow borders—used decoratively rather than purposefully.
• Hero metric layout: Big number, small label, supporting stats, gradient accent. It's a template now.
• Sparklines as decoration: Tiny charts that look sophisticated but convey nothing.
• Cards nested in cards: The AI's go-to for "organizing" content.
• Inter/Roboto/system fonts: The path of least resistance.
• Purple-to-blue gradients on white: The #1 "AI marketing site" tell.
• Rounded rectangles with drop shadows: Generic, safe, forgettable.
• Identical card grids: Same-sized cards with icon + heading + text, repeated.

Ask yourself: If you showed this to someone and said "AI made this," would they believe you immediately? If yes, that's the problem.

A distinctive interface should make someone ask "how was this made?" not "which AI made this?"

2. Visual Hierarchy

• Does the eye flow to the most important element first?
• Is there a clear primary action? Can you spot it in 2 seconds?
• Do size, color, and position communicate importance correctly?
• Is there visual competition between elements that should have different weights?

3. Information Architecture

• 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)
• Is the navigation clear and predictable?

4. Emotional Resonance

• 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?
• Would the target user feel "this is for me"?

5. Discoverability & Affordance

• Are interactive elements obviously interactive?
• Would a user know what to do without instructions?
• Are hover/focus states providing useful feedback?
• Are there hidden features that should be more visible?

6. Composition & Balance

• Does the layout feel balanced or uncomfortably weighted?
• Is whitespace used intentionally or just leftover?
• Is there visual rhythm in spacing and repetition?
• Does asymmetry feel designed or accidental?

7. Typography as Communication

• Does the type hierarchy clearly signal what to read first, second, third?
• Is body text comfortable to read? (line length, spacing, size)
• Do font choices reinforce the brand/tone?
• Is there enough contrast between heading levels?

8. Color with Purpose

• 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?)

9. States & Edge Cases

• Empty states: Do they guide users toward action, or just say "nothing here"?
• Loading states: Do they reduce perceived wait time?
• Error states: Are they helpful and non-blaming?
• Success states: Do they confirm and guide next steps?

10. Microcopy & Voice

• Is the writing clear and concise?
• Does it sound like a human (the right human for this brand)?
• Are labels and buttons unambiguous?
• Does error copy help users fix the problem?

Generate Critique Report

Structure your feedback as a design director would:

AI Slop Verdict

Start here. Give a clear verdict: Does this look AI-generated? If yes, list the specific tells you spotted. This is pass/fail—either it's distinctive or it's not. Be brutally honest.

Overall Impression

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.

Priority Issues

The 3-5 most impactful design problems, ordered by importance:

For each issue:

• 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 (/polish, /simplify, /bolder, /quieter, etc.)

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"
• 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