Evaluate an interface from a UX perspective, assessing hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, cognitive load, and overall quality with quantitative scoring and actionable feedback. Use when the user wants an overall design or UX review—not when the main need is measurable accessib

MANDATORY PREPARATION Users start this workflow with /critique . Once this skill is active, load $frontend design — it contains design principles, anti patterns, and the Context Gathering Protocol . Follow that protocol before proceeding — if no design context exists yet, you MUST load $setup first. Additionally gather: what the interface is trying to accomplish. 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. Consult the [hierarchy checklist](../frontend design/reference/hierarchy checklist.md) for grayscale tests, action prioritization, and label/value treatment. Consult the [text hierarchy and readability](../frontend design/reference/text hierarchy and readability.md) for line length, line height, baseline, alignment, and title restraint. Consult the [cognitive load](../frontend design/reference/cognitive load.md) for working memory limits and the 8 item checklist. Consult the [interaction design](../frontend design/reference/interaction design.md) when evaluating familiar patterns, target sizing, focus treatment, and overlay behavior. Consult the [search and findability](../frontend design/reference/search and findability.md) when the interface depends on site search, command palettes, autosuggest, result relevance, or no results recovery. Consult the [legacy modernization](../frontend design/reference/legacy modernization.md) when the critique involves legacy systems, old/new seams, migration candidates, or high risk operational workflows. Consult the [ai slop detection](../frontend design/reference/ai slop detection.md) for the consolidated anti pattern list. Consult the [action hierarchy](../frontend design/reference/action hierarchy.md) when evaluating primary/secondary/tertiary actions. Consult the [semantic color](../frontend design/reference/semantic color.md) when color is carrying meaning. Consult the [surface separation](../frontend design/reference/surface separation.md) when judging borders, card usage, overlap, or background shift decisions. Consult the [image treatment](../frontend design/reference/image treatment.md) when screenshots, icons, and media affect readability or polish. Treat the shared frontend design references as canonical for hierarchy, readability, and cognitive load doctrine, then keep this skill focused on evaluation, scoring, and prioritization. When empty states are relevant, evaluate the zero data surface itself through empty state thinking, and evaluate broader activation, aha moments, and first run education through onboard thinking. Phase 1: 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? Review the design against ALL the DON'T guidelines in the frontend design skill and the [ai slop detection](../frontend design/reference/ai slop detection.md) reference — 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. 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? Does the right thing stand out, or is emphasis spread so evenly that nothing is memorable? (von Restorff effect) Do size, color, and position communicate importance correctly? Is there visual competition between elements that should have different weights? Is the hierarchy clear even if you imagine the screen in grayscale? Are section titles quieter than the content they introduce, or are they stealing focus? Has action hierarchy flattened so multiple buttons feel equally urgent? 3. Information Architecture & Cognitive Load Consult [cognitive load](../frontend design/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? Do common patterns behave the way users already expect? Check navigation, search, tables, filters, forms, tabs, dropdowns, pagination, and settings for unnecessary novelty. Is avoidable complexity pushed into the system through defaults, prefills, and guidance, or dumped on the user to manage manually? (Tesler's Law) Are there too many choices at once? Count visible options at each decision point — if 4, flag it Is the navigation clear and predictable? If search is present, does it understand intent, synonyms, typos, and likely destinations, or does it punish users for not knowing internal vocabulary? In mixed legacy/modern flows, does one fragile step make the entire product feel unreliable or inconsistent? 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 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? Would the target user feel "this is for me"? Do frequent interactions respond fast enough to preserve flow, or do repeated waits keep breaking concentration? (Doherty Threshold) 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? Would a user know what to do without instructions? Are primary and frequent targets large enough and close enough to use confidently, especially on touch devices? Do powerful features have safeguards proportional to their risk — permissions, previews, undo, confirmation, history, or explicit consequence language? 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? Is there more space around groups than within them, or do group boundaries feel ambiguous? Are borders doing necessary structural work, or just compensating for weak spacing/background contrast? Are cards, shadows, overlap, and background shifts being used with a clear separation strategy, or are multiple methods piling up noisily? 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? Are there too many near identical font sizes to feel like a real type scale? Does line height match line length, or do long paragraphs feel cramped? Are section titles visually too loud for the role they play? Are links drawing too much attention through color when weight, underline, or hover treatment would be calmer? Are number columns aligned for comparison when numeric scanning matters? 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?) Are tinted surfaces using appropriate text colors, or is there washed out gray on color behavior? Are there too many improvised shades for the palette to feel systematic? 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? Do forms and searches accept harmless input variation gracefully, or do they reject users for formatting trivia that could be normalized? (Postel's Law) Error states: Are they helpful and non blaming? Success states: Do they confirm and guide next steps? Are screenshots readable at the size shown? Are icons being scaled in a way that feels intentional rather than chunky or mushy? 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? Is any part of the flow manipulative — confusing consent, obstructed cancellation, guilt copy, fake urgency, or hierarchy that pressures the wrong choice? Does error copy help users fix the problem? 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. Include a one line hierarchy verdict immediately after the pass/fail statement. 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, 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) Suggested command : Which command could address this (from: /animate, /arrange, /critique, /extract, /polish, /optimize, /audit, /typeset, /bolder, /clarify, /delight, /adapt, /colorize, /quieter, /harden, /distill, /onboard, /normalize, /showcase) Favor issues related to weak hierarchy, arbitrary systems, unclear action priority, and noisy decoration over surface level nitpicks. When relevant, explicitly call out: too many borders, ambiguous grouping, too many font sizes, too many unsystematic shades, loud section titles, flattened action hierarchy, line length/line height mismatches, label:value anti patterns, unnecessary colored link emphasis, non right aligned number columns, weak surface separation strategy, scaled down screenshot legibility failures, scaled up icon chunkiness, and overlap clashes where layers are not cleanly separated. 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