/design

name: design
description: Design workflows — UX copy, design systems, design critique, accessibility review, design handoff, user research synthesis. Use when writing UI copy, reviewing designs, building component systems, checking accessibility, or preparing developer handoffs.
routing:
  triggers:
    - "design"
    - "UX copy"
    - "design system"
    - "design critique"
    - "accessibility"
    - "WCAG"
    - "design handoff"
    - "user research"
    - "UI copy"
    - "component library"
    - "design review"
    - "typography"
    - "color system"
  category: business
  not_for: "visual UI implementation or component coding (use ui-design-engineer agent); product roadmaps or feature prioritization (use business-ops skill, PRODUCT mode) — this skill covers design methodology: research, wireframes, accessibility audits, design-system documentation"
  force_route: false
  pairs_with: []
user-invocable: true  # justification: design work spans multiple modes; direct invocation for targeted design tasks

Design

Umbrella skill for design workflows: UX copy, design systems, critique, accessibility review, developer handoff, and user research synthesis. Each mode loads its own reference files on demand.

---

Mode Detection

Classify into one mode before proceeding.

| Mode | Signal Phrases | Reference | |------|---------------|-----------| | **UX-COPY** | write copy, button text, error message, empty state, onboarding copy, tooltip text, confirmation dialog, notification copy | `references/ux-copy.md` | | **DESIGN-SYSTEM** | design tokens, component library, naming conventions, audit components, document component, extend system, theme architecture | `references/design-systems.md` | | **CRITIQUE** | review design, critique mockup, design feedback, evaluate screen, visual hierarchy, usability review | `references/design-critique.md` | | **ACCESSIBILITY** | WCAG, accessibility audit, color contrast, keyboard navigation, screen reader, a11y, focus management, ARIA | `references/accessibility-review.md` | | **HANDOFF** | developer handoff, spec sheet, handoff doc, implementation spec, design-to-dev, responsive spec | `references/design-handoff.md` | | **RESEARCH** | synthesize research, interview analysis, usability findings, survey results, user segments, research themes | (inline — see workflow) |

If the request spans modes, pick the primary mode and note the secondary.

---

Workflow by Mode

UX-COPY Mode

**Load**: `references/ux-copy.md`, `references/llm-design-failure-modes.md`

1. **Gather context** — Ask conversationally:

• Component type (button, error, empty state, tooltip, confirmation, notification, onboarding)
• User state and emotional context (frustrated, exploring, completing a task)
• Brand voice (formal, friendly, playful, reassuring)
• Constraints (character limits, platform guidelines, localization needs)
• Existing copy patterns (what terminology the product already uses)

2. **Generate copy** using component-specific patterns from reference:

• Primary recommendation with rationale
• 2-3 alternatives with tone/context guidance
• Localization notes (character expansion, idiom risks, cultural context)

3. **Validate** — Check against these gates:

• Copy uses product's existing terminology consistently
• Action labels match outcomes (button says what it does)
• Error messages follow What happened + Why + How to fix
• Character limits respected for target platform
• No jargon without explanation

**Gate**: Copy exists for all requested components. Each piece has rationale tied to user context. Alternatives provided with differentiated use cases.

DESIGN-SYSTEM Mode

**Load**: `references/design-systems.md`, `references/llm-design-failure-modes.md`

1. **Determine operation**:

| Operation | Inputs | Key Actions | |-----------|--------|-------------| | Audit | Component library or codebase | Check naming consistency, token coverage, hardcoded values, state completeness, documentation gaps | | Document | Component name + context | Generate props/variants/states/accessibility/usage spec | | Extend | Gap description + existing system | Propose new component using existing tokens and patterns, show relationship to existing components |

2. **Execute** using design token architecture from reference:

• Tokens: color (brand, semantic, neutral), typography (scale, weights, line heights), spacing (scale, component padding), borders (radius, width), shadows (elevation), motion (duration, easing)
• Components: variants, states (default, hover, active, disabled, loading, error), sizes, accessibility, composition patterns
• Patterns: form patterns, navigation patterns, data display, feedback

3. **Validate**:

| Check | Criteria | |-------|----------| | Naming | Consistent convention across all components | | Tokens | No hardcoded values — everything references a token | | States | All interactive states defined (default, hover, active, disabled, loading, error) | | A11y | ARIA roles, keyboard behavior, screen reader announcements documented | | Composition | Component works standalone and composed with others |

**Gate**: Output uses consistent naming. All values reference tokens. Interactive states complete. Accessibility documented.

CRITIQUE Mode

**Load**: `references/design-critique.md`, `references/llm-design-failure-modes.md`

1. **Gather context**:

• Design stage (exploration, refinement, final polish)
• Target users and their goals
• Focus area (optional — "just the navigation" vs full review)
• Platform (web desktop, web mobile, native iOS, native Android)

2. **Apply structured critique** — Four-step method:

• **Describe**: What is present? Elements, layout, visual relationships. No judgment yet.
• **Analyze**: How are design principles applied? Hierarchy, contrast, alignment, proximity, repetition.
• **Interpret**: What does the design communicate? Emotional tone, brand alignme