/designpowers-critique

name: designpowers-critique
description: Use when reviewing design work against a plan, design principles, or quality standards — provides structured critique covering design intent, accessibility, consistency, and user impact. This is the Designpowers critique skill — use this instead of the Superpowers design-critique when working within a Designpowers workflow

Design Critique

Critique is a structured evaluation of whether the design achieves what it set out to do, for the people it set out to serve — and whether it does so with the craft quality the project demands. This skill ensures review is rigorous, specific, and constructive. When a taste profile exists, critique includes aesthetic evaluation against that profile — not arbitrary personal preference, but the specific emotional target, craft standards, and quality bar the team agreed on.

When to Use

• After completing a design task or set of tasks
• Before handoff to engineering
• When a design decision feels uncertain
• At scheduled review points in a design plan

Process

Step 1: Gather Review Inputs

Before critiquing, assemble:

• The design brief (from design-discovery)
• The design plan (from writing-design-plans)
• The design principles (from design-strategy)
• The personas (from inclusive-personas)
• The current design artefacts (mockups, code, prototypes)

Step 2: Evaluate Against Intent

For each design decision, ask: 1. **Does it solve the stated problem?** Refer to the design brief 2. **Does it serve the identified personas?** All of them, not just the primary user 3. **Does it follow the design principles?** Specifically which principles it upholds or violates 4. **Does it align with the design system?** If applicable

Step 3: Craft and Taste Evaluation

If a taste profile exists (from `design-taste`), evaluate the design against it:

**Emotional target:**

• [ ] Does the design evoke the intended feeling? (Reference the taste profile's emotional target)
• [ ] Would the user describe this experience with the words in the emotional target?

**Craft standards:**

• [ ] Spacing has intentional rhythm — not just "correct," but considered
• [ ] Colour usage follows the restraint/vibrancy rules in the taste profile
• [ ] Shadows, borders, and radii use a consistent vocabulary
• [ ] Typography choices serve both readability and personality
• [ ] The overall composition feels cohesive — like one designer, not a committee

**Reference benchmark:**

• [ ] This design would sit comfortably next to the taste references
• [ ] The quality level matches what was agreed (prototype/production/flagship)

**Craft findings format:** | Element | Taste expectation | Current state | Gap | |---------|------------------|---------------|-----| | [Element] | [What the taste profile calls for] | [What exists] | [Specific difference] |

If no taste profile exists, note this as an observation: "No taste profile was created for this project. Craft evaluation is based on general quality standards only."

Step 4: Accessibility Review

Every critique includes an accessibility evaluation:

**Perceivable:**

• [ ] All content is available to screen readers
• [ ] Colour is not the sole indicator of meaning
• [ ] Contrast ratios meet WCAG AA minimum
• [ ] Text is resizable to 200% without loss of function
• [ ] Alt text is present and appropriate

**Operable:**

• [ ] All interactions are keyboard accessible
• [ ] Focus order is logical
• [ ] Focus indicators are visible
• [ ] Touch targets meet 44x44px minimum
• [ ] Motion respects prefers-reduced-motion
• [ ] No keyboard traps

**Understandable:**

• [ ] Language is plain and clear
• [ ] Navigation is consistent
• [ ] Error messages explain the problem and the solution
• [ ] Form labels are visible and associated
• [ ] Behaviour is predictable

**Robust:**

• [ ] Semantic HTML is used correctly
• [ ] ARIA is used only when necessary and correctly
• [ ] The design works across supported browsers and assistive technology

Step 5: Classify Issues

Rate each finding:

| Severity | Definition | Action | |----------|-----------|--------| | **Critical** | Blocks access for some users or violates the design intent | Must fix before proceeding | | **Major** | Degrades experience significantly but does not block access | Should fix before handoff | | **Minor** | Improvement opportunity, does not block or significantly degrade | Fix if time allows | | **Note** | Observation or suggestion for future iteration | Document for next cycle |

Step 6: Write the Critique

# Design Critique: [Feature/Task Name]

**Reviewed against:** [Design brief, plan, principles — with references]

**Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]

## Summary
[2-3 sentences: overall assessment]

## Craft Assessment
[Does the design meet the taste profile's quality bar? Emotional target alignment? Reference benchmark?]

## Findings

### Critical
- [Finding]: [Explanation] → [Recommended action]

### Major
- [Finding]: [Explanation] → [Recommended action]

### Minor
- [Finding]: [Explanation] → [Recommended action]

### Notes
- [Observation]

## Accessibility Status
[Pass/Fail against WCAG AA with specific gaps]

## Recommendation
[Proceed / Revise and re-review / Rethink approach]

Step 7: Present and Discuss

Present findings to the user. For each critical or major issue, explain:

• What the issue is
• Who it affects (reference specific personas)
• What the recommended fix is
• Why it matters

Critical issues block progress. They must be resolved before moving to handoff.

Step 8: Record Design Debt

After the critique is complete and the fix round is determined:

1. Identify all **Minor** and **Note** severity findings that will NOT be fixed in this round 2. Invoke `design-debt-tracker` to capture these as debt items in the Design Debt Register 3. Each deferred item must include: who is affected, suggested fix, and why it was deferred

Do not silently drop Minor findings. They either get fixed or they g