本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

gestalt-web-design

Applies Gestalt psychology principles to web layout, spacing, grouping, and visual hierarchy. Proximity, similarity, closure, continuity, figure-ground, common fate, Pragnanz — translated into CSS, component structure, and information architecture. Activate on 'gestalt', 'visual grouping', 'proximity spacing', 'visual hierarchy', 'perceptual organization', 'layout psychology', 'whitespace strategy'. NOT for color theory (use color-theory-palette-harmony-expert), not for accessibility auditing (use design-accessibility-auditor).

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md7.4 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Gestalt Web Design

Applies Gestalt psychology principles to create interfaces that feel "obvious" to users by aligning with hardwired patterns of human visual processing.

Decision Points

When Proximity and Similarity Conflict

IF elements are functionally related BUT visually different:
  └── Apply proximity first (group with spacing)
  └── Then break similarity deliberately (e.g., accent color on primary CTA)
  └── Use 3:1 spacing ratio minimum between groups

IF elements look similar BUT serve different functions:
  └── Increase visual difference (color, size, or shape)
  └── Maintain proximity grouping for actual relationships
  └── Test: can user distinguish purpose at 3-second glance?

IF user needs to scan many similar items:
  └── Perfect similarity for easy scanning
  └── Break similarity only for critical state changes (error, selected)
  └── Use consistent spacing grid throughout

Spacing Hierarchy Conflicts

IF content requires more than 4 spacing levels:
  └── Audit for over-segmentation
  └── Combine related groups using similarity instead
  └── Reserve spacing jumps for major semantic boundaries

IF equal spacing is creating false groups:
  └── Implement 2:1 minimum ratio between spacing levels
  └── Map spacing to information architecture
  └── Test grouping perception with 5-second exposure

Figure-Ground Ambiguity

IF multiple elements compete for attention:
  └── Apply elevation hierarchy (ground/surface/raised/overlay)
  └── Dim background elements using opacity/desaturation
  └── Ensure only ONE primary figure per screen area

IF modal/overlay feels weak:
  └── Darken backdrop to 50-70% opacity
  └── Add substantial shadow to modal container
  └── Remove competing elements from z-index stack

Failure Modes

Schema Bloat

Symptoms: Users report "too busy" or "overwhelming" despite minimal content Diagnosis: Too many visual groups breaking proximity law Fix: Consolidate related items using tighter spacing, remove unnecessary dividers, establish 3-tier spacing system maximum

Invisible Boundaries

Symptoms: Users click wrong targets, miss related controls, confused navigation flow Diagnosis: Insufficient proximity differentiation between groups Fix: Increase inter-group spacing to 2.5x+ intra-group spacing, audit click heatmaps for misdirected interactions

False Similarity

Symptoms: Users expect identical behavior from visually similar elements that function differently
Diagnosis: Inconsistent visual treatment for different interaction types Fix: Create distinct visual categories for each interaction pattern, audit all buttons/links for consistent styling within function type

Ground Competition

Symptoms: Users cannot locate primary content or miss critical CTAs Diagnosis: Multiple elements competing for figure status, weak figure-ground separation Fix: Establish clear elevation hierarchy, ensure single primary action per view, increase contrast between content and navigation areas

Dead-End Flows

Symptoms: Users abandon tasks before completion, report "getting lost" Diagnosis: Continuity violations breaking expected visual flow Fix: Create alignment grids, add visual connectors (arrows, lines, number sequences), test completion rates before/after continuity improvements

Worked Examples

Settings Page Redesign Walkthrough

Initial State: Equal 16px spacing throughout, bordered cards everywhere, inconsistent button styles User Feedback: "Can't tell what goes together"

Step 1 - Proximity Audit:

  • Measure all gaps: 16px everywhere (proximity failure)
  • Decision: Implement 8px/24px/48px hierarchy
  • Related fields get 8px gaps, section breaks get 48px

Step 2 - Similarity Audit:

  • Found 3 different button styles for same "edit" function
  • Decision: Standardize all secondary actions to ghost buttons
  • Keep only primary CTA as filled button per section

Step 3 - Closure Application:

  • Remove all card borders, use spacing + background color for grouping
  • Test: Can users still identify sections? Yes, cleaner appearance

Step 4 - Figure-Ground Enhancement:

  • Danger zone gets red-tinted background (5% opacity)
  • Primary actions get higher elevation shadow
  • Form inputs get subtle inset appearance

Result: Task completion up 23%, "ease of use" rating improved from 3.2 to 4.6

Expert vs Novice:

  • Novice would focus on visual "polish" (gradients, shadows for decoration)
  • Expert recognizes proximity spacing as the primary tool for reducing cognitive load

Quality Gates

  • Spacing uses exactly 3 levels maximum: intra-group (8px), inter-group (24px), section breaks (48px+)
  • Spacing ratio between adjacent levels is minimum 2:1, preferably 3:1
  • All elements serving same function share identical visual treatment (color, size, spacing, typography)
  • No visual borders where proximity spacing can handle grouping
  • Primary content area passes squint test: distinguishable from navigation at 50% blur
  • Interactive elements have distinct figure-ground relationship from static content
  • Hover states on grouped elements coordinate together (common fate test)
  • Grid layouts maintain regular dimensions (no arbitrary sizing)
  • Visual flow guides toward primary CTA without dead ends
  • Zero arbitrary spacing values (all measurements from defined scale)

NOT-FOR Boundaries

Do NOT use for:

  • Color palette harmony → use color-theory-palette-harmony-expert
  • Typography pairing and font selection → use typography-expert
  • Accessibility compliance (contrast, screen readers) → use design-accessibility-auditor
  • Animation timing and easing → use web-design-expert
  • Brand identity visual language → use brand-design-expert

Delegate when:

  • User reports accessibility barriers → design-accessibility-auditor
  • Content requires complex data visualization → data-visualization-expert
  • Mobile-specific touch interaction patterns → mobile-ux-expert
  • Performance optimization of visual assets → web-performance-optimizer

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Expert in 2000s-era music visualization (Milkdrop, AVS, Geiss) and modern WebGL implementations. Specializes in Butterchurn integration, Web Audio API AnalyserNode FFT data, GLSL shaders for audio-reactive visuals, and psychedelic generative art. Activate on "Milkdrop", "music visualization", "WebGL visualizer", "Butterchurn", "audio reactive", "FFT visualization", "spectrum analyzer". NOT for simple bar charts/waveforms (use basic canvas), video editing, or non-audio visuals.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/windags-skills132026年10月12日 更新

Expert legal research agent for finding and scraping expungement data state by state. Knows authoritative sources, URL patterns, Firecrawl configuration, and 2026 legal landscape.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/windags-skills132026年10月12日 更新

Expert in 3D computer vision labeling tools, workflows, and AI-assisted annotation for LiDAR, point clouds, and sensor fusion. Covers SAM4D/Point-SAM, human-in-the-loop architectures, and vertical-specific training strategies. Activate on '3D labeling', 'point cloud annotation', 'LiDAR labeling', 'SAM 3D', 'SAM4D', 'sensor fusion annotation', '3D bounding box', 'semantic segmentation point cloud'. NOT for 2D image labeling (use clip-aware-embeddings), general ML training (use ml-engineer), video annotation without 3D (use computer-vision-pipeline), or VLM prompt engineering (use prompt-engineer).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/windags-skills132026年10月12日 更新

Apply crisis decision-making research to agent routing, uncertainty triage, and coordination failure analysis in time-pressured systems. Use when diagnosing handoff failures, analytical paralysis, or expert judgment under incomplete information. NOT for routine coding, simple CRUD design, or static single-agent tasks with complete information.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/windags-skills132026年10月12日 更新

Use for insight, reframing, contradiction, impasse, and anomaly-driven problem solving when execution effort no longer helps. NOT for routine optimization, error correction, or well-specified tasks with known solution paths.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/windags-skills132026年10月12日 更新

Apply normative BDI reasoning to agents that must detect norms, choose which commitments to internalize, and resolve conflicts by comparing consequences. Use when obligations, prohibitions, or policies collide in autonomous systems. NOT for simple fixed-priority rules, pure constraint satisfaction, or domains where no real normative conflict exists.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/windags-skills132026年10月12日 更新

curiositech のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する