Results for “critique”

Expert 5-dimension design critique — philosophical, scored, actionable. Use when asked to "critique this design", "expert review", "score my design", "how does this look", "is this good design", "design feedback", or "review this UI". Different from /form-audit (which is technical QA for consistency/compliance) — form-critique evaluates design as a craft object: philosophy, hierarchy, execution, function, and innovation each scored 0–10 with a punch list. Add "as a report" or "give me a visual report" to produce an HTML file with SVG radar chart, evidence cards, and Keep/Fix/Quick-wins action lists — useful for design reviews and stakeholder presentations instead of CLI output.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Explore training workflows that reduce harmful model responses using a written set of principles. The skill covers self-critique, revised training examples, and RLAIF, reinforcement learning from AI feedback, with implementation examples and hardware guidance.

• Designing principles for model safety training
• Creating training examples through self-critique and revision
• Planning reinforcement learning with AI-rated responses

Explore training workflows that reduce harmful model responses using a written set of principles. The skill covers self-critique, revised training examples, and RLAIF, reinforcement learning from AI feedback, with implementation examples and hardware guidance.

• Designing principles for model safety training
• Creating training examples through self-critique and revision
• Planning reinforcement learning with AI-rated responses

Choose charts and diagrams that fit the data and the question readers need to answer. Plan layouts and interactions for large screens and mobile devices, or critique existing visuals for misleading comparisons, unclear labels, and hidden information.

• Choose a chart for a specific analytical question
• Review an existing chart for misleading presentation
• Plan dashboard layouts for desktop and mobile

Produces detailed law-school case briefs of United States judicial opinions in a fixed nine-section structure: memory jogger, facts, procedural history, judicial votes, holding, opinion-by-opinion analysis, five future-application hypotheticals, critique, and verified key quotations. Also builds vote tables, cross-case consistency tables, perspective-based critiques, and LaTeX in article, Beamer and casebook-chapter formats. Use whenever someone asks to brief a case, analyse or explain an opinion, summarise a decision for students, generate hypotheticals from a holding, critique a judgment, tabulate how justices voted, or convert case analysis to LaTeX. Triggers on "brief this case", "case brief", "explain the holding", "what did the court hold", "hypotheticals based on", "critique this opinion", "vote table", "Beamer presentation", "chapter brief", and on any reference to a judicial opinion or Supreme Court decision in a teaching context. Requires web search to verify quotations, votes and holdings.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Design lens critique covering visual hierarchy, clarity, and anti-slop patterns — produces a findings table, no code edits unless asked. Use when the user wants a design review, says "what's wrong with this UI", or needs a second opinion before a handoff or presentation. Invoke when the user asks for critique on their UI, or mentions 'critique' alongside design / UI / frontend work.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Critique a design for usability, hierarchy, and accessibility. Use when the user says "critique this design", "review this screen", "what's wrong with this UI", "design feedback", "UX review", "how can I improve this", "review my mockup", "is this good UX", or shares a design and wants structured feedback - even if they don't explicitly say "design critique".

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Add one optional Codex critique to a decision draft produced by council. With explicit consent to send the draft to OpenAI, examine weak conclusions, missing failure scenarios, and overlooked dissent before the user makes the final decision.

• Reviewing an ambiguous, consequential decision draft
• Finding failure scenarios missing from a draft
• Checking whether strong dissent was overlooked

Run a project's configured build and test commands, including type checks that detect inconsistent data types. Save pass or fail results, failure details, and logs so an automated editing loop can decide whether verification is complete.

• Verifying code after a framework migration
• Checking completed edits for build and test failures
• Using test results to stop an automated editing loop

Review HTML pages, presentations, or prototypes across five design dimensions. Receive evidence-backed scores, a radar chart, and practical lists of what to keep, fix, or improve quickly, all packaged in a single self-contained HTML report.

• Reviewing a landing page before delivery
• Checking the readability and navigation of an HTML presentation
• Comparing two versions of a design

Revisit a recent answer, plan, draft, or decision using selected critique methods. The skill offers relevant approaches, explains what they reveal, and proposes improvements that are applied only after the user accepts them.

• Examining assumptions in a plan
• Reviewing a draft from several perspectives
• Exploring failure risks before a launch

VS-Enhanced Theoretical Framework Architect with Critique & Visualization Full VS 5-Phase process: Modal theory avoidance, Long-tail exploration, differentiated framework presentation Absorbed A3 (Devil's Advocate) critique and A6 (Conceptual Framework Visualizer) capabilities Use when: building theoretical foundations, designing conceptual models, deriving hypotheses, critiquing frameworks, visualizing models Triggers: theoretical framework, 이론적 프레임워크, conceptual model, 개념적 모형, hypothesis derivation, critique, devil's advocate, 반론, visualization, diagram

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Critique a rendered screen's composition — balance, whitespace, rhythm, and gestalt grouping. Use when a layout feels off but hierarchy is fine. For emphasis and eye flow specifically, use `critique-visual-hierarchy`.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Self-critique specification documents using extended thinking — surfaces hidden assumptions, contradictions, missing edge cases, and scope creep before implementation

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Aesthetic assessment and design scoring across 6 dimensions. Use for UI critique, design review, visual quality assessment, remix suggestions. Activate on "design critique", "aesthetic review", "UI assessment", "visual quality", "design score", "remix this design". NOT for implementation (use frontend-developer), accessibility-only audits (use color-contrast-auditor), or brand identity creation.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Aesthetic assessment and design scoring across 6 dimensions. Use for UI critique, design review, visual quality assessment, remix suggestions. Activate on "design critique", "aesthetic review", "UI assessment", "visual quality", "design score", "remix this design". NOT for implementation (use frontend-developer), accessibility-only audits (use color-contrast-auditor), or brand identity creation.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Review a UI/UX plan before implementation, score its design dimensions, and identify missing decisions. Through discussion, the skill adds concrete improvements directly to the plan so the review produces an updated plan.

• Reviewing a UI/UX plan before implementation
• Finding missing design decisions
• Adding design critique directly to a plan

Review a screen, user flow, or component against the user's task. Assess visual hierarchy, interaction cues, error handling, accessibility, and consistency, then provide prioritized fixes with reasons and identify strengths worth preserving.

• Getting feedback on a screen or mockup
• Checking usability before a feature launches
• Reviewing a flow where users may drop off

Guide an iterative review of a built interface against its design brief, using critique and adjustment to improve visual alignment. This catalogue entry points agents to the upstream workflow, which requires a separate installation.

• Review a built interface against its design brief
• Refine visual differences through repeated adjustments
• Plan a design-to-code review cycle

Review a design against Dieter Rams' ten principles using evidence from code, screenshots, copy, and measurements. Receive a scorecard, a verdict on whether to create, refine, or redesign, and a prompt for planning the next steps.

• Audit a UI against Dieter Rams' ten principles
• Decide whether to refine or redesign a screen
• Check interface wording and usability with evidence

Uses multiple agents with different critical roles to challenge assumptions, complexity, risks, and alternatives. Findings that withstand review go to a dedicated planner, who turns them into sequenced tasks with explicit success criteria.

• Reviewing assumptions before implementation
• Checking integration risks and edge cases
• Comparing alternative approaches

Have agents with different roles challenge a proposed approach, exposing weak assumptions, missed interactions, and unnecessary complexity. Surviving findings go to a dedicated planning agent, which produces sequenced tasks with explicit success criteria.

• Checking assumptions before committing to a plan
• Finding integration risks and overlooked edge cases
• Challenging unnecessary complexity in a design

Review existing Appwrite blog posts for tone, structure, SEO, formatting, and product accuracy. Compare claims with local documentation, identify specific problems, and produce a structured report with suggested rewrites and prioritized fixes.

• Review an Appwrite blog draft before publication
• Audit titles, summaries, and search intent
• Verify feature descriptions and API details against local docs

Review a Figma design, screenshot, or written description for usability, visual hierarchy, consistency, and accessibility. Receive specific findings, explanations, and prioritized improvements, with feedback tailored to the design stage and intended users.

• Reviewing an early screen design
• Checking navigation and onboarding usability
• Finding inconsistent colors, spacing, and typography