[OMX] Run an anti-slop cleanup/refactor/deslop workflow
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。
[OMX] Canonical repo-local DESIGN.md workflow for product, UI/UX, and frontend decision source of truth
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。
実行スコア 未検証
インストール方法を見る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。
Use $design when product, UI/UX, frontend, or design-system decisions need a durable source of truth in the repository. This skill discovers existing design context, interviews for missing product/design information, and creates or refreshes repo-local DESIGN.md so future UI/UX/frontend work is grounded instead of improvised.
Make repo-local DESIGN.md source of truth and canonical design contract for the current repository:
existing repo evidence -> missing-context interview -> create/refresh DESIGN.md -> use DESIGN.md for UI/UX/frontend decisions.
The output is not a pixel-matching loop and not a one-off visual critique. It is the maintained design brief/checklist that implementation, review, and future visual work should cite.
DESIGN.md created or refreshed before $ralph, a designer lane, or implementation work proceeds.$visual-ralph for that visual-reference implementation loop.$visual-ralph and its built-in visual verdict flow.$visual-ralph$design owns the durable repo design source of truth: product goals, users, IA, visual language, components, accessibility, constraints, and open questions in DESIGN.md.
$visual-ralph owns implementation against an approved generated/static/live-URL visual reference, with screenshot capture, Visual Ralph verdict scoring, and pixel-diff evidence. $visual-ralph may read DESIGN.md, and it may leave design-system artifacts behind, but it does not replace the DESIGN.md discovery/interview/refresh workflow.
If both are needed, run $design first to establish the design contract, then run $visual-ralph only after the visual reference/baseline is approved.
Inspect the repository before writing guidance. Look for:
DESIGN.md, docs/design*, docs/ux*, docs/frontend*, README.md, product specs, PRDs, and issue notes..omx/artifacts/visual-ralph/* references.Record evidence with file paths. Distinguish observed facts from design inferences.
Ask concise questions only when repo evidence cannot answer design-critical context. Prefer one focused round that closes the biggest gaps, such as:
If the user wants autonomous progress or cannot answer, create DESIGN.md with explicit assumptions and open questions instead of blocking.
DESIGN.mdUse the structure below. Preserve useful existing content, remove contradictions, and mark unknowns as open questions. Keep it actionable for implementers and reviewers.
DESIGN.md structure/checklist# Design
## Source of truth
- Status: Draft | Active | Needs refresh
- Last refreshed: YYYY-MM-DD
- Primary product surfaces:
- Evidence reviewed:
## Brand
- Personality:
- Trust signals:
- Avoid:
## Product goals
- Goals:
- Non-goals:
- Success signals:
## Personas and jobs
- Primary personas:
- User jobs:
- Key contexts of use:
## Information architecture
- Primary navigation:
- Core routes/screens:
- Content hierarchy:
## Design principles
- Principle 1:
- Principle 2:
- Tradeoffs:
## Visual language
- Color:
- Typography:
- Spacing/layout rhythm:
- Shape/radius/elevation:
- Motion:
- Imagery/iconography:
## Components
- Existing components to reuse:
- New/changed components:
- Variants and states:
- Token/component ownership:
## Accessibility
- Target standard:
- Keyboard/focus behavior:
- Contrast/readability:
- Screen-reader semantics:
- Reduced motion and sensory considerations:
## Responsive behavior
- Supported breakpoints/devices:
- Layout adaptations:
- Touch/hover differences:
## Interaction states
- Loading:
- Empty:
- Error:
- Success:
- Disabled:
- Offline/slow network, if applicable:
## Content voice
- Tone:
- Terminology:
- Microcopy rules:
## Implementation constraints
- Framework/styling system:
- Design-token constraints:
- Performance constraints:
- Compatibility constraints:
- Test/screenshot expectations:
## Open questions
- [ ] Question / owner / impact
DESIGN.md as the decision contractFor UI/UX/frontend work after the refresh:
DESIGN.md sections before making design choices.DESIGN.md or add an open question before proceeding.DESIGN.md sections, repo evidence, and acceptance criteria.$visual-ralph with the approved reference/baseline and note that DESIGN.md is supporting context, not the visual verdict target.Do not declare the design workflow complete until:
DESIGN.md open questions.DESIGN.md exists at the repo root and contains all required checklist sections.DESIGN.md rather than relying on unstated preferences.$visual-ralph handoff is clearly separated as visual implementation matching, not DESIGN.md governance.Task: {{ARGUMENTS}}
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。
ログインなしで書き込めます。使ってみた感想、質問、動かなかった環境などを気軽にどうぞ。
まだコメントはありません。最初のコメントを書いてみませんか。
[OMX] Run an anti-slop cleanup/refactor/deslop workflow
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。
[OMX] Run read-only deep repository analysis and return a ranked synthesis with explicit confidence, concrete file references, and clear evidence-vs-inference boundaries. Use when a user says 'analyze', 'investigate', 'why does', 'what's causing', or needs grounded cross-file explanation before any changes are proposed.
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。
[OMX] Ask a local external advisor CLI (Claude or Gemini) and capture a reusable artifact
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。
[OMX] Strict autonomous loop: $deep-interview -> $ralplan -> $ultragoal (+ $team if needed) -> $code-review -> $ultraqa
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。
[OMX] Stateful validator-gated research loop with native-hook persistence
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。
[OMX] Durable professor-critic research workflow over Codex goal mode without reviving deprecated omx autoresearch
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。