Now liveThe Skillselion MCP - thousands of ranked skills, loaded into your agent mid-task. No install.Get it →
owl-listener avatar

Taste Feedback

  • 11 installs
  • 233 repo stars
  • Updated June 23, 2026
  • owl-listener/designpowers

Helps with ai & agent building tasks during AI-assisted development.

About

taste-feedback is a Claude Code skill for ai & agent building. It helps developers move faster with AI-assisted coding.

  • taste-feedback
  • AI & Agent Building
  • AI-coding skill

Taste Feedback by the numbers

  • 11 all-time installs (skills.sh)
  • Ranked #11,769 of 16,546 AI & Agent Building skills by installs in the Skillselion catalog
  • Data as of Aug 1, 2026 (Skillselion catalog sync)
npx skills add https://github.com/owl-listener/designpowers --skill taste-feedback

Add your badge

Show developers this skill is listed on Skillselion. Paste this into your README.

Listed on Skillselion
Installs11
repo stars233
Last updatedJune 23, 2026
Repositoryowl-listener/designpowers

What it does

Helps with ai & agent building tasks during AI-assisted development.

Files

SKILL.mdMarkdownGitHub ↗

Live Taste Feedback

The standard Designpowers pipeline catches taste mismatches at critique — after the full build is done. That's expensive. A wrong colour palette discovered after 8 components are built means rebuilding all 8. This skill interrupts the build at strategic moments to show intermediate output and ask: "Is this heading in the right direction?"

When to Use

  • During design-builder execution, at natural visual checkpoints
  • When the build involves subjective aesthetic decisions (colour, typography, spacing, tone)
  • When this project's taste direction (design-taste) is ambiguous on the decision at hand
  • When the project is new and there's little explicit direction yet for this decision
  • When the design-lead's direction was based on interpretation, not explicit user instruction

Do Not Use When

  • The user is in auto mode and hasn't opted into taste checks
  • The build is purely structural (data models, API integration, routing)
  • This project's design-taste direction already settles this decision clearly
  • The user has explicitly said "just build it, I'll review at the end"

Process

Step 1: Identify Checkpoints

Before the build begins, identify 2-4 moments where taste feedback is most valuable. More than 4 interruptions becomes annoying. Choose wisely.

High-value checkpoints:

CheckpointWhy It MattersWhen to Show
Colour and typography appliedThe foundational visual layer — everything else builds on thisAfter the first component is styled
Layout structure visibleSpatial relationships, density, whitespaceAfter the primary screen scaffold is built
First interaction implementedHow the interface moves and respondsAfter the first stateful component works
Content integratedHow real words look in the designAfter content-writer's copy is in place

Low-value checkpoints (avoid):

CheckpointWhy It's Low Value
Unstyled HTML structureNothing to react to aesthetically
Individual component in isolationContext-free judgement is unreliable
After every small changeInterruption fatigue kills the creative flow

Step 2: Prepare the Checkpoint

At each checkpoint, capture the current state:

1. Take a screenshot of the running output (or describe the visual state precisely if screenshots aren't available) 2. Identify the taste-sensitive decisions visible in the current output 3. Prepare specific questions — do not ask "does this look good?" (too vague)

Good taste questions are specific and answerable:

Bad QuestionGood Question
"Does this look good?""The heading is set in 32px Inter Medium — is that weight right, or do you want bolder/lighter?"
"Any feedback?""The cards have 16px padding and 8px radius. Does this density feel right, or do you want more breathing room?"
"Is this the right direction?""I went warm grey (#F5F3F0) for the background instead of pure white. Does this warmth match what you had in mind?"

Step 3: Present the Checkpoint

Show the user the intermediate state with targeted questions:

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
  TASTE CHECK  [1 of 3]
  Phase: [e.g., "Colour & Typography"]
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

  [Screenshot or detailed visual description]

  DECISIONS VISIBLE:
  • [Decision 1 — e.g., "Sage green (#8FAE8B) as primary"]
  • [Decision 2 — e.g., "Space Grotesk for headings, Inter for body"]
  • [Decision 3 — e.g., "Generous padding, low density"]

  TASTE QUESTIONS:
  1. [Specific question about a visible decision]
  2. [Specific question about a visible decision]

  Quick responses welcome:
  • "Looks right" → continue building
  • "Warmer/cooler/bolder/quieter" → adjust and continue
  • "Stop — wrong direction" → pause build, discuss
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Step 4: Process the Response

The user's response determines what happens next:

ResponseActionTaste Signal
"Looks right" / "Yes" / "Continue"Resume building. No changes neededModerate positive — note in design-memory as confirmed direction
Specific adjustment ("make it warmer")Apply the adjustment, show confirmation, then continueStrong — record the adjustment and the direction they moved from/to
"Wrong direction" / "Stop"Pause the build. Ask what feels off. This is the most valuable taste dataVery strong negative — record what was rejected and why
Detailed feedback ("I like the type but the colour feels too muted")Apply partial changes. Acknowledge what works, adjust what doesn'tMixed signal — record both the positive and negative separately
"Skip these checks"Disable further taste checks for this build. Respect the preferenceMeta-preference — they want to review at the end instead

Step 5: Adjust and Confirm

When the user requests a change:

1. Make the adjustment 2. Show the updated state briefly — do not re-present the full checkpoint 3. Confirm: "Updated [what changed]. Continuing the build." 4. Do not ask for re-approval unless the change was ambiguous

If the change cascades (e.g., new colour palette affects multiple components already built):

1. Flag the cascade: "This colour change will affect the 3 components already built. I'll update them all." 2. Update everything before continuing 3. Optionally show the cascaded result at the next checkpoint

Step 6: Record Taste Data

After each checkpoint interaction, update taste signals:

1. Record confirmed decisions as positive signals in design-memory 2. Record adjustments with before/after — these are the richest taste data 3. Record rejections as anti-pattern candidates 4. Note the direction of adjustments — "wanted warmer", "wanted more contrast", "wanted tighter spacing" — these directional signals generalize across projects

Checkpoint Frequency

Adapt based on user behaviour:

User BehaviourAdjust To
Approves every checkpoint quicklyReduce to 1-2 checkpoints — they trust the direction
Gives detailed feedback at every checkpointMaintain 3-4 — they want to shape the output
Says "skip" or seems impatientDrop to 1 checkpoint or none — ask at the end
Requests more checkpointsAdd checkpoints — they want more control

The system should learn this preference over time via design-memory.

Integration With Pipeline Modes

ModeBehaviour
DirectTaste checkpoints are shown naturally — they fit the approval flow
AutoTaste checkpoints are disabled by default in auto mode. The user chose speed. If the user opts in ("auto but check my taste"), enable minimal checkpoints (1-2 max)

Integration

  • Called by: design-builder (at visual checkpoints during build), using-designpowers (can be enabled/disabled)
  • Calls: design-memory (to record taste signals from feedback)
  • Reads from: Taste profile (to determine checkpoint frequency and known preferences), design-state.md (for current decisions)
  • Pairs with: design-memory, ui-composition, designpowers-critique

Anti-Patterns

PatternWhy It Fails
Asking "does this look good?"Too vague. The user can't give actionable feedback without specific questions
Checking after every changeInterruption fatigue. 2-4 checkpoints per build, maximum
Showing unstyled outputThere's nothing to react to. Wait until visual decisions are visible
Ignoring "skip" signalsIf the user wants to review at the end, respect that. Don't force mid-flight checks
Not recording feedbackEvery checkpoint interaction is taste data. If you don't record it, you'll ask the same questions next project
Presenting in auto mode without consentAuto mode means "don't interrupt me." Only show taste checks if the user explicitly opted in
Asking about non-visual decisions"Is this the right React component pattern?" is not a taste question. Keep checks visual and aesthetic

Related skills

This week in AI coding

Five minutes, every Monday - the tools, releases and tactics for developers.

unsubscribe anytime.