Validates a UX spec, HUD design, or interaction pattern library for completeness, accessibility compliance, GDD alignment, and implementation readiness. Produces APPROVED / NEEDS REVISION / MAJOR REVISION NEEDED verdict with specific gaps.
70
87%
Does it follow best practices?
Run evals on this skill
Adds up to 20 points to the overall score
View guide
Low
Low-risk findings worth noting
Validates UX design documents before they enter the implementation pipeline.
Acts as the quality gate between UX Design and Visual Design/Implementation in
the /team-ui pipeline.
Run this skill:
/ux-designui-programmer or art-directorVerdict levels:
/ux-review design/ux/inventory.md): validate
that one documentall: find all files in design/ux/ and validate eachhud: validate design/ux/hud.md specificallypatterns: validate design/ux/interaction-patterns.md specificallyFor all, output a summary table first (file | verdict | primary issue) then
full detail for each.
Before validating any spec, load:
.claude/docs/technical-preferences.md and
extract ## Input & Platform. This is the authoritative source for which input
methods the game supports — use it to drive the Input Method Coverage checks in
Phase 3A, not the spec's own header. If unconfigured, fall back to the spec header.design/accessibility-requirements.md
(if it exists)design/ux/interaction-patterns.md (if
it exists)design/player-journey.md (if it exists) for
context-arrival validationRun all checks against a ux-spec.md-based document.
Player Need Clarity
Completeness of States
Input Method Coverage
Data Architecture
Accessibility
accessibility-requirements.md is matched or exceededGDD Alignment
Pattern Library Consistency
Localization
Acceptance Criteria Quality
Run all checks against a hud-design.md-based document.
design/gdd/systems-index.md with UI category have
representation in HUD (or justified absence)## UX Review: [Document Name]
**Date**: [date]
**Reviewer**: ux-review skill
**Document**: [file path]
**Platform Target**: [from header]
**Accessibility Tier**: [from header or accessibility-requirements.md]
### Completeness: [X/Y sections present]
- [x] Purpose & Player Need
- [ ] States & Variants — MISSING: error state not documented
### Quality Issues: [N found]
1. **[Issue title]** [BLOCKING / ADVISORY]
- What's wrong: [specific description]
- Where: [section name]
- Fix: [specific action to take]
### GDD Alignment: [ALIGNED / GAPS FOUND]
- GDD [name] UI Requirements — [X/Y requirements covered]
- Missing: [list any uncovered GDD requirements]
### Accessibility: [COMPLIANT / GAPS / NON-COMPLIANT]
- Target tier: [tier]
- [list specific accessibility findings]
### Pattern Library: [CONSISTENT / INCONSISTENCIES FOUND]
- [findings]
### Verdict: APPROVED / NEEDS REVISION / MAJOR REVISION NEEDED
**Blocking issues**: [N] — must be resolved before implementation
**Advisory issues**: [N] — recommended but not blocking
[For APPROVED]: This spec is ready for handoff to `/team-ui` Phase 2
(Visual Design).
[For NEEDS REVISION]: Address the [N] blocking issues above, then re-run
`/ux-review`.
[For MAJOR REVISION NEEDED]: The spec has fundamental gaps in [areas].
Recommend returning to `/ux-design` to rework [sections].This skill is READ-ONLY — it never edits or writes files. It reports findings only.
After delivering the verdict:
/team-ui to begin implementation coordination/ux-design with the
specific sections to reworkNever block the user from proceeding — the verdict is advisory. Document risks, present findings, let the user decide whether to proceed despite concerns. A user who chooses to proceed with a NEEDS REVISION spec takes on the documented risk.
984023d
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.