본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

concept-selection

Choose between competing concepts against criteria fixed in advance, and record what each rejected concept was testing. Use when several directions are alive and one has to win. For picking which problem to work on, use `opportunity-framework` (ux-strategy); for deciding by production traffic, use `a-b-test-design`.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(1)

  • SKILL.md3.4 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Concept Selection

You are an expert in converging on a design direction without laundering preference as reasoning.

What You Do

You run the decision that ends a parallel exploration. You fix the criteria before the options are compared, apply them to every concept, choose one, and record why the others lost. The output is a decision record, not a scoreboard — the reasoning is the part that survives the meeting.

Criteria Before Comparison

Order matters more than the criteria themselves. Write down what would make a concept win before you look at the set. Criteria written afterwards describe the option you already preferred, with a scoring table on top. Criteria come from the brief's success criteria and the product's principles, not from the room. Each one has to be capable of failing a concept:

Weak criterionWhy it failsStronger form
"Feels modern"No concept can lose on it"Uses only patterns already in the design system"
"Better UX"Restates the goal"Completes the core task in three steps or fewer"
"Scalable"Unfalsifiable at this stage"Holds at 400 items without pagination"
Mark each criterion as a threshold (fail it and the concept is out) or a trade-off (weighed against the others). Mixing the two silently is how a concept that breaks a hard constraint stays in the conversation.

Deciding Honestly

  • Evidence over volume. A concept dies on a test result, a constraint, or a stated criterion — not on how many people in the room disliked it.
  • Name what the winner costs. Every choice gives something up. A selection that reports no downside has not been examined; state what the winning concept sacrificed and what would make you revisit it.
  • A split set is a priority problem, not a design problem. If two concepts each win on a different criterion, the criteria conflict and the team has a priority to settle. Escalate that rather than averaging the two into a compromise that leads on nothing.
  • Never graft losers onto the winner. Taking one feature from each concept produces a design nobody argued for and no evidence supports.

The Rejected Concepts Are Half the Output

For each concept not chosen, record three things: what it was testing, what it lost on, and what would bring it back. This is the highest-value part of the record. It stops the team relitigating a settled direction six months later, and it feeds design-rationale (designer-toolkit) when the decision has to be defended in writing.

Best Practices

  • Name who decides before the review — a selection with no owner defaults to the loudest voice in the room
  • Apply the criteria to the incumbent too; the current design does not get a bye for arriving first
  • Keep rejected concepts retrievable rather than deleted — revisiting is only cheap while the work still exists
  • Do not select across mismatched fidelities; re-level the set first or the polish decides for you
  • Not for a change you can measure in production — use a-b-test-design and let traffic choose

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

Design an A/B experiment — hypothesis, variants, primary metric, and sample size. Use when a change can be measured quantitatively at scale. For observing behaviour qualitatively, use `test-scenario`.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Owl-Listener/designer-skills3천2026년 9월 6일 업데이트

Audit an existing interface against WCAG, producing findings with severity ratings and remediation steps. Use when you have a design or build to assess now. Not for planning future sessions with assistive-technology users — use `accessibility-test-plan` (prototyping-testing).

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Owl-Listener/designer-skills3천2026년 9월 6일 업데이트

Plan accessibility testing — assistive technologies, participant criteria, WCAG coverage, and session protocol. Use when scheduling testing with real AT users. Not for evaluating a design yourself — use `accessibility-audit` (design-systems).

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Owl-Listener/designer-skills3천2026년 9월 6일 업데이트

Apply the Aesthetic-Usability Effect — polished, consistent interfaces are perceived as more usable and forgive minor friction. Use when justifying visual polish or diagnosing why a functional design tests badly. For emotional resonance specifically, use `interfaces-that-feel` (interaction-design).

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Owl-Listener/designer-skills3천2026년 9월 6일 업데이트

Cluster many qualitative data points into themes and insight statements. Use when synthesising across multiple sessions or sources. For a single transcript use `summarize-interview`; for one segment's inner state use `empathy-map`.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Owl-Listener/designer-skills3천2026년 9월 6일 업데이트

Apply animation principles — easing, staging, follow-through — to one specific UI motion. Use when tuning how an animation feels. For product-wide duration and easing tokens use `motion-system` (design-systems); for a full interaction spec use `micro-interaction-spec`.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Owl-Listener/designer-skills3천2026년 9월 6일 업데이트

Owl-Listener의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고