Design notes on a PR, "Design review (advisory)" in the evidence check, "worth fixing", layout.split-row, OW-LIST, a reviewer says the UI looks off. Use to read what the design review found on a PR's screenshots, fix it in code, and prove the note is gone.
75
94%
Does it follow best practices?
Run evals on this skill
Adds up to 20 points to the overall score
Low
Low-risk findings worth noting
Every PR that records evidence screenshots gets an advisory design review. Its notes ride in the Evidence preview check, next to the evidence they are about: one summary line, and the notes as the check's text. They never change the evidence verdict, but a note marked Worth fixing is a defect a careful designer would send back. Fix it, or say in the PR why the screen is right.
sha=$(gh pr view <pr> --json headRefOid --jq .headRefOid)
check() { gh api "repos/{owner}/{repo}/commits/$sha/check-runs?check_name=Evidence%20preview" --jq ".check_runs[0].output.$1"; }
check summary # ends with "Design review (advisory): 3 notes, 1 worth fixing." or "no notes."
check text # the notes, then the same notes as JSONEach note gives:
| Field | Use it to |
|---|---|
| rule | layout.* was measured from the DOM (exact). S2, V2… are DESIGN.md; OW-* are the OpenWork Design rules in evals/design-review/rubric.md (judged from pixels; may vary run to run) |
| Screenshot | the spec step that took it, and the spec file |
| Where in the code | grep for the hook ([data-library-row="…"] → data-library-row) or the class list to find the component |
| Reproduce | the command that re-records the screenshots and reviews them locally |
The JSON block at the end of the check text has the same notes for scripts. The screenshots themselves are in the review report the check links to.
--json output, not prose:
pnpm evals:e2e <slug> --local && pnpm --dir evals design:review -- --test-run latest --json
(judged notes need OPENAI_API_KEY or ANTHROPIC_API_KEY; measured ones do not).evals/design-review/rubric.md before changing anything: the fix follows
the team's pattern, not the note's wording.Design review (advisory): no notes. or lists only what you decided to keep.A judged note can be wrong, and a team decision can outrank a generic rule.
Leave the code, and put one line in the PR body under Evidence:
Design review: kept OW-LIST-HEADER on the Library; the columns are compared (see DESIGN.md S2).
Do not edit the rubric to silence a note in the same PR that triggers it.
different-ai/openwork
acacc7b
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.