critique
Adversarial design critique of the current work — render it, look at it, and argue for rejection. Run after the gates are green, never instead of them.
Interrogate the brief before a line is built — ask only the questions whose answers change the work, and put every unasked decision on the record as a stated assumption.
> /plugin marketplace add plugin87/ux-ui-agent-skills > /plugin install ux-ui-agent-skills@ux-ui-agent-skills
How it fires
How this command gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
/grill-meContext preview
What this command does when you run it.
Interrogate the brief before a line is built — ask only the questions whose answers change the work, and put every unasked decision on the record as a stated assumption.
description: Interrogate the brief before a line is built — ask only the questions whose answers change the work, and put every unasked decision on the record as a stated assumption.
The gates catch a screen built wrongly. Nothing in this repo catches a screen built correctly from the wrong brief, and that is where the expensive rework comes from: four eval runs scored 14/14 on the gates and still came back from `/critique` as rework, every finding a decision no gate can see.
This command spends five minutes up front to remove that class of failure.
Target: `$ARGUMENTS` (the thing about to be built; if that is not clear, that is itself the first question).
Asking for something the repo already answers is noise, and it teaches the user that answering you is a waste of time. Before writing a single question:
If one exists, the theme question is answered — do not ask it.
the component inventory are usually visible, not unknown.
Every question you keep after this pass is one the code genuinely cannot answer.
Pick from these. Do not ask all of them.
**Purpose and lead**
answer is "nothing", and that is a composition bug before it is a design.)
**Content reality**
project name, a nine-digit amount, an email with no spaces to break?
real is a lie the user catches immediately.
**Irreversible actions**
(Destructive wears the danger variant in every place it appears — the trigger and the confirm dialog both. A blue Delete is an automatic fail.)
do next?
**Theme and platform**
**Scope and done**
part of the bar or not?
time is worse than a wrong assumption.
build, it is not a question, it is a default — take it and say so.
content, and constraint; decide the rest.
An assumption held silently is indistinguishable from a guess. Each one gets a line: what was assumed, the default taken, and what it costs if it is wrong.
Assumption: no dark mode requested -> shipping both anyway (the theme is already dual, so the cost of including it is zero and the cost of retrofitting is not).
Write `BRIEF.md` next to the work, in this shape:
# <what is being built> Goal one sentence, from the user's side User and task who, and the task they came to finish Deliverables exact list; N screens means N screens Lead the one thing the eye lands on first Content reality empty / one / many, longest string, real vs placeholder Irreversible which actions, what confirms them, what failure reads like Theme source of truth, dark mode, brand direction Platform floor narrowest width, framework, RTL, AA or AAA Out of scope what this is deliberately not Assumptions each with its default and its cost if wrong Done when the gates that must pass, and whether /critique is part of the bar
This file is the thing `/critique` and a later reviewer argue against. A brief that lives only in the conversation cannot be checked, and so it will not be.
`/grill-me` -> build -> `/gate` -> `/critique`. This command removes ambiguity. It does not produce quality, it does not score anything, and it is not a substitute for rendering the work and looking at it.
Turn Claude into a senior design architect - DTCG design tokens, 50 components, WCAG 2.2 AA to AAA, 138 design systems, any-framework code, and 38 objective gates that fail the build instead of claiming success. Install as a Claude Code plugin or with npx.
Repo: plugin87/ux-ui-agent-skills
Adversarial design critique of the current work — render it, look at it, and argue for rejection. Run after the gates are green, never instead of them.
Run the one-command quality gate and report the real N/N result. Use before claiming any build/review is done.
Scaffold a new design-product project that matches the recommended Claude Code layout (the reference structure). Use when starting a fresh product/app that…