CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

bmad-agent-ux-designer

UX designer and UI specialist. Use when the user asks to talk to Sally or requests the UX designer

Quality

74%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/bmad-agent-ux-designer/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

81%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

This is a well-engineered instruction-only activation workflow: exact executable commands, a clearly sequenced multi-step procedure with explicit validation checkpoints and error-recovery branches, and concrete fallback rules. The only notable weaknesses are a couple of dense prose passages (Step 5's ticket-finding bullet, Step 8's install-source sentence) and references to bundle-external files that cannot be verified from the skill itself.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is almost entirely operational — exact commands, file precedence, and merge rules — with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows. Minor trimmable instances ("Fully embody this persona so the user gets the best experience") and a dense run-on in Step 5's ticket-finding bullet keep it at anchor 4 rather than a fully lean 5.

4 / 5

Actionability

Concrete, copy-paste-ready commands with full arguments ("uv run {project-root}/_bmad/scripts/resolve_customization.py --skill {skill-root} --project-root {project-root} --key agent", "npx skills add bmad-code-org/BMAD-METHOD --skill bmad") plus explicit fallback merge rules (scalars override, tables deep-merge, keyed arrays replace-and-append). Not a 5: the menu table format and the bmod.toml source-resolution logic are described in tangled prose with no rendered example.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Eight clearly sequenced activation steps with an explicit validation checkpoint ("confirm every entry was executed in order... Do not begin the main workflow until all activation steps have been completed"), error-recovery branches (script not found → offer BMAD setup → retry; other failure → manual three-file merge), and input gating ("Stop and wait for input"). This matches the anchor-5 pattern of explicit validation steps with feedback loops; no destructive or batch operations exist to trigger the cap.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

A single well-organized file with clear section headers and no nested references, all content appropriately inlined for an activation procedure. Not a 5: the body is ~75 lines and cites files not present in the bundle ({skill-root}/customize.toml, {skill-root}/bmod.toml, and the illustrative references/guide.md), leaving those navigation targets unverifiable.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

57%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description has an explicit and specific trigger clause and a distinctive persona hook ("Sally"), but the what-clause is a bare role label with no concrete capabilities and the trigger terms miss common variations like "user experience" or "UI". It reads as a persona identifier rather than a capability description.

Suggestions

Add 2-3 concrete capabilities to the what-clause, e.g. "Creates UX specifications, interaction designs, and wireframes; translates user needs into design intent" — currently only role nouns are stated.

Include trigger synonyms users would naturally say, such as "user experience", "UI", "interface design", or "wireframes", alongside "Sally" and "UX designer".

State what the agent produces (e.g. "UX specs and design intent that feed architecture and implementation") so the description answers "what does this do" concretely, not just "who is this".

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"UX designer and UI specialist" names the domain but contains no concrete actions — role nouns only, with no capability verbs like "creates UX specifications" or "designs wireframes". It is not a 1 because the domain is clearly named, and not a 3 because no concrete action is listed at all.

2 / 5

Completeness

Both parts are present: the "what" ("UX designer and UI specialist") and an explicit "when" ("Use when the user asks to talk to Sally or requests the UX designer"). Not a 5 because the what-clause is a bare role label without concrete capability phrases; not a 3 because the when-clause is explicit and specific rather than weakly implied.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"talk to Sally" and "requests the UX designer" are genuinely natural trigger phrases, but common variations a user would say — "user experience", "UI", "interface", "wireframe", "design" — are absent. Keyword coverage has relevant terms yet misses multiple common variations, fitting anchor 3 rather than 4.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Sally" is a highly distinctive persona-name trigger, but the generic role terms "UX designer" and "UI specialist" could overlap with other design-adjacent skills. Mostly distinct with minor overlap risk fits anchor 4; a 5 would require a fully distinct trigger niche beyond the persona name.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

referenced_paths_exist

Referenced path issues: 1 missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

bmad-code-org/BMAD-METHOD

Path

skills/bmad-agent-ux-designer/SKILL.md

Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

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.