Design Review
- 1.1k installs
- 946 repo stars
- Updated July 2, 2026
- jezweb/claude-skills
design-review is a Claude Code skill that audits web page and app visual design—layout, typography, spacing, color, hierarchy, and responsive behavior—and returns an annotated findings report with screenshots for develop
About
design-review is a jezweb claude-skills workflow marked claude-code-only that reviews web apps and pages for visual design quality rather than UX usability. The agent inspects layout, typography, spacing, colour, hierarchy, consistency, interaction patterns, and responsive behaviour, then delivers a design findings report with screenshots. Triggers include phrases like “design review,” “does this look good,” “check the layout,” “is this polished,” and “it looks off.” Developers reach for design-review after implementing UI when they want a second pair of eyes on professional polish before shipping marketing sites, dashboards, or product shells. The readme explicitly distinguishes this from UX audits that focus on workflows and friction. Output is an annotated visual review artifact teams can feed into CSS or component fixes.
- Evaluates layout, typography, spacing, colour, hierarchy, consistency, interaction patterns and responsive behaviour
- Distinguishes visual polish from UX/usability concerns
- Produces a design findings report including annotated screenshots
- Works with live URLs or local dev servers via Chrome, Playwright MCP or playwright-cli
- Recommended before client demos, after feature completion, or as periodic quality gate
Design Review by the numbers
- 1,119 all-time installs (skills.sh)
- +35 installs in the week ending Jul 29, 2026 (Skillselion tracking)
- Ranked #364 of 1,888 Design & UI/UX skills by installs in the Skillselion catalog
- Security screen: MEDIUM risk (skills.sh audit)
- Data as of Jul 31, 2026 (Skillselion catalog sync)
npx skills add https://github.com/jezweb/claude-skills --skill design-reviewAdd your badge
Show developers this skill is listed on Skillselion. Paste this into your README.
| Installs | 1.1k |
|---|---|
| repo stars | ★ 946 |
| Security audit | 2 / 3 scanners passed |
| Last updated | July 2, 2026 |
| Repository | jezweb/claude-skills ↗ |
How do you review visual design polish before shipping?
Get an objective visual design review of a web page or app with annotated findings and screenshots.
Who is it for?
Claude Code users shipping web UIs who want an objective visual polish review separate from UX workflow audits.
Skip if: Usability or accessibility-only audits, backend performance reviews, or agents outside Claude Code per the skill compatibility note.
When should I use this skill?
A user asks for a design review, visual polish check, layout critique, or whether a page looks professional before launch.
What you get
Design findings report with screenshots annotating layout, typography, spacing, color, hierarchy, and responsive issues.
- design findings report
- annotated screenshots
Files
Design Review
Review a web app or page for visual design quality. This is not a UX audit (usability, workflow, friction) — this checks whether the design is professional, consistent, and polished.
The goal: would a design-conscious person look at this and think "this is well made" or "this looks like a developer designed it"?
When to Use
- Before showing something to a client or team
- When something "looks off" but you can't pinpoint why
- After building a feature, before calling it done
- Periodic quality check on a shipped product
- After a UX audit — this is the visual companion
Browser Tool Detection
Same as ux-audit — Chrome MCP, Playwright MCP, or playwright-cli.
URL Resolution
Same as ux-audit — prefer deployed/live over localhost.
What to Check
1. Layout and Spacing
| Check | Good | Bad |
|---|---|---|
| Consistent spacing | Same gap between all cards in a grid, same padding in all sections | Some cards have 16px gap, others 24px. Header padding differs from body |
| Alignment | Left edges of content align vertically across sections | Heading starts at one indent, body text at another, cards at a third |
| Breathing room | Generous whitespace around content, elements don't feel cramped | Text touching container edges, buttons crowded against inputs |
| Grid discipline | Content follows a clear column grid | Elements placed freely, no underlying structure |
| Responsive proportions | Sidebar/content ratio looks intentional at every width | Sidebar takes 50% on tablet, content is squeezed |
| Vertical rhythm | Consistent vertical spacing pattern (e.g. 8px/16px/24px/32px scale) | Random spacing: 13px here, 27px there, 8px somewhere else |
2. Typography
| Check | Good | Bad |
|---|---|---|
| Hierarchy | Clear visual difference between h1 → h2 → h3 → body | Headings and body text look the same size/weight |
| Line length | Body text 50-75 characters per line | Full-width text running 150+ characters — hard to read |
| Line height | Body text 1.5-1.7, headings 1.1-1.3 | Cramped text or excessive line height |
| Font sizes | Consistent scale (e.g. 14/16/20/24/32) | Random sizes: 15px, 17px, 22px with no relationship |
| Weight usage | Regular for body, medium for labels, semibold for headings, bold sparingly | Everything bold, or everything regular with no hierarchy |
| Truncation | Long text truncates with ellipsis, title attribute shows full text | Text overflows container, wraps awkwardly, or is cut off without ellipsis |
3. Colour and Contrast
| Check | Good | Bad |
|---|---|---|
| Semantic colour | Using design tokens (bg-primary, text-muted-foreground) | Raw Tailwind colours (bg-blue-500, text-gray-300) |
| Contrast ratio | Text meets WCAG AA (4.5:1 for body, 3:1 for large text) | Light grey text on white, or dark text on dark backgrounds |
| Colour consistency | Same blue means the same thing everywhere (primary = action) | Blue means "clickable" in one place and "informational" in another |
| Dark mode | All elements visible, borders defined, no invisible text | Elements disappear, text becomes unreadable, images look wrong |
| Status colours | Green=success, yellow=warning, red=error consistently | Green used for both success and "active" with different meanings |
| Colour overuse | 2-3 colours + neutrals | Rainbow of colours with no clear hierarchy |
4. Visual Hierarchy
| Check | Good | Bad |
|---|---|---|
| Primary action | One clear CTA per page, visually dominant | Three equally styled buttons competing for attention |
| Squint test | Squinting at the page, the most important element stands out | Everything is the same visual weight — nothing draws the eye |
| Progressive disclosure | Most important info visible, details available on interaction | Everything shown at once — overwhelming |
| Grouping | Related items are visually grouped (proximity, borders, backgrounds) | Related items scattered, unrelated items touching |
| Negative space | Intentional empty space that frames content | Empty space that looks accidental (uneven, trapped white space) |
5. Component Consistency
| Check | Good | Bad |
|---|---|---|
| Button styles | One primary style, one secondary, one destructive — used consistently | 5 different button styles across the app |
| Card styles | All cards have the same border-radius, shadow, padding | Some cards rounded, some sharp, some with shadows, some without |
| Form inputs | All inputs same height, same border style, same focus ring | Mix of heights, border styles, focus behaviours |
| Icon style | One icon family (Lucide, Heroicons), consistent size and stroke | Mixed icon families, different sizes, some filled some outlined |
| Border radius | Consistent radius scale (e.g. 4px inputs, 8px cards, 12px modals) | Random radius values: 3px, 7px, 10px, 16px |
| Shadow | One or two shadow levels used consistently | Every component has a different shadow depth |
6. Interaction Design
| Check | Good | Bad |
|---|---|---|
| Hover states | Buttons, links, and clickable cards change on hover | No hover feedback — user unsure what's clickable |
| Focus states | Keyboard focus visible on all interactive elements | Focus ring missing or invisible against background |
| Active states | Nav items, tabs, sidebar links show current selection | Active item looks the same as inactive |
| Transitions | Subtle transitions on hover/focus (150-200ms ease) | No transitions (jarring) or slow transitions (laggy) |
| Loading indicators | Skeleton screens or spinners during async operations | Content pops in without warning, layout shifts |
| Disabled states | Disabled elements are visually muted, cursor changes | Disabled buttons look clickable, no cursor change |
7. Responsive Quality
| Check | Good | Bad |
|---|---|---|
| Mobile nav | Clean hamburger/sheet menu, easy to tap | Desktop nav squished into mobile, tiny tap targets |
| Image scaling | Images fill containers proportionally | Images stretched, cropped badly, or overflowing |
| Table responsiveness | Horizontal scroll on mobile, or stack to cards | Table wider than screen with no way to see columns |
| Touch targets | At least 44x44px on mobile | Tiny links, close buttons, checkboxes |
| Tablet | Layout works at 768px (not just desktop and phone) | Layout breaks at tablet widths, awkward gaps |
Severity Guide
| Level | Meaning | Example |
|---|---|---|
| High | Looks broken or unprofessional | Invisible text in dark mode, buttons different heights inline |
| Medium | Looks unpolished | Inconsistent spacing, mixed icon styles, truncation without ellipsis |
| Low | Nitpick | 1-2px alignment, slightly different border-radius, shadow too strong |
Output
Write findings to .jez/artifacts/design-review.md:
# Design Review: [App Name]
**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD
**URL**: [url]
## Overall Impression
[1-2 sentences — professional / unpolished / inconsistent / clean]
## Findings
### High
- **[issue]** at [page/component] — [what's wrong] → [fix]
### Medium
- **[issue]** at [page/component] — [what's wrong] → [fix]
### Low
- **[issue]** — [description]
## What Looks Good
[Patterns that are well-executed and should be preserved]
## Top 3 Fixes
1. [highest visual impact change]
2. [second]
3. [third]Take screenshots of findings where the issue is visual (most of them).
Tips
- Check dark mode AND light mode — most issues appear in one but not the other
- The squint test is the fastest way to find hierarchy problems
- Component inconsistency is the most common issue in dev-built UIs
- "Looks off" usually means spacing — check margins and padding first
- If you can't identify the issue, compare to a well-designed app in the same category
Related skills
Frontend DesignGenerate distinctive, production-grade frontend interfaces and components that avoid generic AI aesthetics.698k164k
Web Design GuidelinesAutomatically audit frontend code against the latest Vercel Web Interface Guidelines for consistency, accessibility, and UX quality.486k29.4k
Lark WhiteboardGenerate valid Lark Whiteboard (Feishu Board) documents with correctly placed connectors, automatic routing, and proper schema compliance directly from agent inst382k15.8k
Sleek Design Mobile AppsGenerate mobile app screens and UI from plain English descriptions using the Sleek.design API.315k470
Design Taste FrontendOverride generic LLM frontend output with intentional, metric-driven UI/UX taste.284k66.9k
Ui Ux Pro MaxGet instant, high-quality UI/UX decisions, component recommendations, style guidance, and code improvements across web and mobile projects.282k109kFAQ
Does design-review cover UX usability?
design-review evaluates visual design quality—layout, typography, spacing, colour, hierarchy, and responsive behaviour—and is not a UX audit focused on usability, workflows, or friction.
Which agents support design-review?
design-review lists claude-code-only compatibility in its skill front matter and delivers a findings report with screenshots after reviewing a web page or app for visual polish.
Is Design Review safe to install?
skills.sh reports 2 of 3 security scanners passed. Review the Security Audits panel on this page before installing in production.